4 - The Michigan Daily - Wednesday, April 13, 1994 cbz £i iga dg 'They completely Ignored all the rules, but they didn't know any better.' -MSA Representative Meg Whittaker, commenting on the Central Student Judiciary's actions regarding the new MSA constitution 420 Maynard Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan JESSIE HALLADAY Editor in Chief SAM GOODSTEN FuNr WAmEss 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. t I I 19:141 ji 0 9: 1 * ITA I VA I ..w Iin.l .. ib.. I Keeping tabs on the code 'U' must release full information, not summaries A rcdMooNc r jFAT If - r espite spurious claims that it is only following the law, the University con- tinues to operate in violation of its own Statement of Student Rights and Responsi- bilities. This week, the University finally released information regarding cases brought under this code of non-academic conduct. However, the University's case summaries - released in place of the full records the University pulled from the public last month - are so incomplete that students are still unable to evaluate any actions taken by the University. The code itself states that "records will be maintained in such a way that data on violations of this policy are easily available to the public." The University pulled all information on cases heard under the code out of public view last month, only to re- release the information - in a severely abbreviated version -on Monday. In doing so, University officials smugly believe that they have fulfilled both the letter and the spirit of the law. They have done neither. The abbreviated case summaries give little information, and cannot assist the public in its evaluation of the code. The University claims that it is releasing the code records in this form to comply with the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). This is simply not true. FERPA applies to academic records, and leaves open to interpretation any records regarding non-academic conduct, such as records of code cases. This was proven when the University of Georgia lost a law- suit for records of proceedings held under its student conduct code. The ruling clearly stated that FERPA applies only to academic records, not records in cases governed by codes of non-academic conduct. The con- clusion to be drawn from this ruling is if the University takes on the responsibility of administering a code covering non-academic conduct, it must also take responsibility for leaving the records open for public scrutiny. The Michigan Freedom of Information Act requires the University to release origi- nal documents pertaining to disciplinary codes, not the "summaries" the University is currently releasing to the public. Univer- sity officials may protect the privacy of students involved in these cases by blacken- ing out identifying sections of the original documents - the procedure that the Office of Student Affairs previously used. Instead, the University has chosen to completely rewrite and summarize all cases, which ef- fectively gives administrators the leeway to edit anything that may cause students to criticize the code. While there is currently little reason to believe this would happen, the new format would easily allow this type of tampering. The code is the most important and sweep- ing document covering student conduct at the University. The University itself has asked for student input on, and amendments to, the code. However, the new format the adminis- tration has chosen for releasing information on the code cases does not give students enough information to evaluate the code's procedures and decisions. This is clearly a violation of the Michigan Freedom of Infor- mation Act, and FERPA does not provide the legal backup the University claims it does. The University can and must release the information regarding code cases. Stu- dents must have full information, so that they can accurately keep tabs on the code governing their conduct. I-I. Editorial misrepresents facts regarding LSA honor code To the Daly: The headline for your editorial of April 7, 1994 incorrectly states "Committee recommends LSA honor code" and then goes on to criticize the Committee for doing so. In fact, the Daily and this LSA committee are in agreement that an honor code is not the most appropriate response to address concerns of academic freedom within LSA. Our report states: "Rather than attempt to establish a rigid honor code system, which we do not think would work effectively for LSA, we recommend an aggressive, visible educational effort..." This committee of faculty and students met this year to review the LSA Academic Judiciary and consider how best to address issues of academic integrity. The Committee has recommended that the College give more attention and discussion to issues of academic integrity, that students be made aware of definitions of cheating and plagiarism and that faculty give clearer guidelines about collaboration when assigning group projects and take- home exams. It also suggested a number of ways to improve upon the existing process of adjudicating charges of cheating so that it is less formidable and more credible. The committee has also made the report available to LSA faculty and to LSA Student Government for comments and suggestions. Even though your editorial headline got the story wrong, we welcome the Daily's interest in bringing attention to the issue of academic integrity and hope that you will be a partner in helping to educate students about this issue's importance. We just ask that you be more careful in reporting the Committee's recommendations. DAVID SCHOEM LSA Assistant Dean for Undergraduate Education Keep campus litter-free To the Daily: Thousands of people, staff, students and visitors, walk and otherwise travel around campus, so the visual state of the surroundings is very important. Spring brings not just warmth and singing birds, but other less welcome visitors to the Diag. The melting snow uncovered months of candy wrappers, old flyers and other assorted junk, and this is joined daily by a new batch of litter. Students and other users throw at least three big bags full of trash on the diag every day when the weather is nice, and this doesn't include the added mess of ongoing construction. University grounds crew is responsible for keeping. outdoor areas of campus tidy and attractive. Picking litter is just part of that job, and as a grounds student employee I expect to do a certain amount of cleaning up trash dropped or blown on to the diag. However there are many other things I'd rather be doing, and it seems employee hours and our tuition money could be spent on better things if there were a few less Snickers wrappers, Daily's and doggy-doos strewn all over. Grass needs to be reseeded, and flower beds planted, weeds hoed, and many other tasks need to be done, all on a limited budget. Sunshine may be free, but not much else is, and that includes an attractive campus atmosphere, one that YOU are helping to pay for. As you enjoy the great weather while on campus, please give these ideas just a moment of thought and effort. Please don't litter. KELLY CALDWELL SNRE senior Looking ahead with the U.S. militar We're pulling out of Somalia, right? But we're getting ready to bomb Bosnia and doubling our forces in Macedonia, OK? We need a "peace dividend" today for health care and of course we have to save somewhere to reduce the deficit. But if we cut the armed forces we'll get instant unemployment, they say; and the Pentagon warns that it's a jungle out there and we have to be ready to fight two wars at once. So what do we do? What we do is certainly not going to be easy, and is probably going to be painful. Most of the comments above are true, but they look at the wrong questions. The right question may be: what do American armed forces need to do, and how big must they be to do it? Let's take a look at that first, and then see what the price tag comes to. First, most would agree that the general missions of our armed forces are to defend this country, to protect national interests worldwide, to ensure domestic order, and to support U.N. operations. So what are our armed forces now organized to do? Nuke and destroy Russia and China in a few hours, and also be ready on short notice to fight two nonnuclear regional wars at the same time: anybody, anywhere, at any time. That's a tall order, and it requires something like our present strength: 1.7 million troops with the best of everything, ready and able to move fast. It costs about $300 billion a year. Maybe we can cut some troops and save some money, but not much; not if we want to be able to do those things. But do we want to destroy Russia and China? Do they want to destroy us? Are we not missing a great opportunity for mutual assured disarmament? We may still need a second-strike nuclear force, secure from anyone else's first strike and strong enough to deter anyone from hitting us; maybe just enough warheads to cripple either Russia or China. And what about those two simultaneous regional wars? Is that for real? Just one war in Korea, then one in Vietnam and recently one in the Persian gulf each strained us to the limit; we had to go begging each time for allies to help us out. And are those expensive readiness requirements of the Cold War still for real? Is instant military response just another way of saying, "Shoot first, ask questions later?" Do we want that? So if general nuclear war, two simultaneous regional wars and instant readiness are now questionable goals, what goals are more realistic in a world without superpowers? Minimum nuclear deterrence and the ability to fight one regional war with the help of allies seems about right, and we don't have to be ready to fight in two hours, wither. So what armed forces do we need? On this, the arguing has gone on since 1989, with no clear results and so very little reduction in forces. Try this: * Army - from 14 divisions to four, with eight more in the reserves. - Air Force - from 16 to six tactical wings, with 12 more in the reserves, plus 100 intercontinental ballistic missiles. " Navy - from 450 ships to 200, including four aircraft " 0I Injustice in Singapore Flogging is a violation of international human rights M icheal Fay is an 18 year-old U.S. citi- zen visiting his mother and stepfather in Singapore. Last October, Fay pleaded guilty to vandalism of cars with spray paint and eggs - a minor crime in the United States. In most civilized countries, the pun- ishment "fits" the crime. Not so in Singapore. Under Singapore's dictatorship, Fay was sentenced to four months in prison, a fine of $2,215 and a flogging - a mandartory pun- ishment for vandalism in Singapore. Soon, Fay, after having completed his prison sentence and paid his fine, will be bound naked and lashed repeatedly with a rattan cane - a procedure that will most likely leave permanent scars. Typically, the pain is so excruciating that the victim goes unconscious before its completion. Not to worry, though - a doctor will stand by in order to prevent Fay from going uncon- scious, to ensure that he experiences the full effect of his punishment. Alone, the combination prison sentence and fine is a harsh - although lawful - punishment for the minor crime of vandal- ism. However, the flogging, as it involves the infliction of intense and psychologically damaging pain for purposes of punishment, is, by definition, torture.. Torture is an inhumane form of punish- ment that no state or government should have the right to inflict on any human being, whether citizen or foreigner. Freedom from torture is a fundamental right that transcends political boundaries. Recognizing this, the United Nations has established a "Conven- tion Against Torture" applicable to all civi- lized nations which states: "no circumstances whatever may be invoked as justification for torture ..." Singapore, by promoting flog- ging as an acceptable form of punishment, is A state which endows its government with the ability to torture, however, is a state of very restricted freedom. In Singapore, in order to curtail crime, Fay will suffer at the hands of the government. Ironically, under the pretense of freedom from crime, citi- zens enable the government to commit a crime arguably worse than the crime being punished - as evidenced by this case. In a society where the individual is sacrificed for the government, there is little room for freedom, be it freedom from crime or free- dom from torture. Unfortunately, the United States cannot stop Singapore's infraction of morality. Nor can it feasibly stop Singapore's gross viola- tion international law and human dignity. The U.S. government will do little more than it already has - a letter on Clinton's behalf asking for an unlikely clemency. The U.S. government cannot start a war over this issue, nor will it impose economic sanc- tions. The sad truth of the matter is that in the face of this gross torture, the United States can do little but stand by and watch. Furthermore, Fay is only one victim. He is only one of thousands of annual flogging victims in Singapore. His torture is just one symptom of a systemic problem, a blatant human rights violation that is recognized not as torture, but as acceptable punishment in the name of protecting citizens from such horrific problems as graffiti. This crime against humanity must be stopped, and the burden is on the United States. The Clinton administration should con- demn this flogging in the strongest manner possible, and the public should join in iso- lating Singapore and its goods from the world community. Americans have the abil- !' !'I !oJI[e~ Stay out of BY JEFF KEATING s As Americans, we c would like to assume that di every country is going to e hold the same values that ar we as a Western country hold. Singapore's decision c last month, to sentence O Micheal Fay to six lashes st with a cane for vandalism, w does indeed soundasm extreme by our standards. cr However, Singapore is m not, nor has ever ai presumed to be, a Western th country. fr If the issue is ri international standards for el the treatment of accused dc criminals, people will a argue that the judicial or system of Singapore must pl be violating some international norm of u penal behavior. Caning, ni along with flogging and b beating, is defined as se corporal punishment by th the United Nations, of o which Singapore is a e member. le However, there are no F international agreements a that foral nly toa n-nrnrn 1 Singapore pecifically - cites a ountry's right to self- etermination in stablishing its cultural nd social values. As a non-Western ountry, Singapore has its wn set of beliefs And andards that have vorked very well for that cuntry. Singapore views rime as something that gust be dealt with sharply nd severely. In its eyes, e benefits of a crime- ee society outweigh the ghts of criminal ements. It has chosen to eal with crime severely, nd it shows: Singapore is ne of the safest, cleanest laces in the world. It is completely understandable and ormal for Americans to e shocked at Mr. Fay's entence and be vocal over eir disapproval. It is, in iur view, cruel and xcessive. Asking for niency on grounds that ay is a foreigner, and not ccustomed to such a strict laws foreign governments, especially when the United States is in no way a role model in human rights and equality - as a mild example, corporal punishment in the form of paddling was executed on approximately 500,000 students in American public schools last year. Furthermore, it is discriminatory for the United States to say that our Western standard of justice is better or more ethical than Singapore's. To draw a parallel, would it be proper for the Japanese government to demand that the Louisiana man acquitted of shooting a Japanese foreign exchange student in his garage be convicted of murder? American values allow killing in self- defense. But in Japan, where gun ownership is unheard of, citizens could not understand how we could acquit a man who had killed another. 0 I