4 - The Michigan Daily - Thursday, September 15, 1994


E , icl igttn tt 1

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

Jessie Halladay
Editor in Chief
Samuel 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.

'When the Republican alternative is fully under-
stood, we win.'
--David Wilhelm, chairman of the Democratic
National Committee speaking in the
Michigan League Tuesday evening
UPIU AXE
11A N )FF (E1 ~
C4~#- ~
U !'t
;4f
~Tj'14" j'
I _______________________________________

The complicated Union
New policy further restricts student events

S urprise! For at least the third consecutive
year, the University has enacted yet an-
other unnecessary and restrictive student policy
over the summer, while the student body was
conveniently on vacation. The interim Social
Events Policy has created new and expanded
rules regulating all dances and parties which
are held in University facilities, such as the
Union and Michigan League. Such inconve-
niences include mandating all organizations to
meet twice with University administrators to
go over the details of the planned event, in-
creasing police presence at events and tighten-
ing the restrictions on eligible attendees of
parties. While the policy is intended to ensure
safe and fun events, it creates new hassles for
sponsoring student organizations and another
layer of University bureaucracy and red tape.
Like most other broad policies the Univer-
sity writes in haste to respond to isolated
incidents (in this case a few fights at Union
parties last year), this document is vague and
repetitive. The most blatant vague clause in the
new policy is its definition of the types of
events regulated - those that are "generally
considered to be a dance or party." Moreover,
the University can now deny organizations the
right to use University facilities for reasons
ranging from an inadequate DPS presence to
"potential conflicts with other scheduled ar-
eas." Because of this fine legalese prose, the
University now has an inordinate amount of
subjective power to control the coordinating of
student social events.
The repetitive aspect of the new policy is
equally disturbing. If this policy "applies to all
University facilities which may be scheduled/
used for Events," why does the University also
need a Diag policy and Union access policy.
Not only do these policies have similar juris-

dictions and intentions, but their regulations
overlap, further confusing students and in-
creasing the University's ability to unfairly
regulate student activities.
Worst of all, the new policy has provisions
to sanction student organizations which vio-
late this policy. Here, the University is bla-
tantly breaking its promise to not sanction
student organizations, a promise made di-
rectly to student leaders two years ago when
the Statement of Student Rights and Respon-
sibilities (the Code) was drafted. While the
sanctions only serve to limit the use of Univer-
sity facilities by the offending organization,
they are sanctions nonetheless and demon-
strate, as with the new alcohol policy, that the
University has the ultimate goal of regulating
student organizations.
Finally, this policy potentially applies a
double standard to students. Events held in
University facilities, including weddings held
in the Union and meetings planned by non-
University community members, are regu-
lated by this policy as well. Such events gen-
erate a great deal of income for these Univer-
sity facilities, and it is difficult to believe that
the University will suddenly force wedding
planners to meet twice with University ad-
ministrators.
If such unfair usage of the new regulations
occurs, the University will be proving, once
again, that it believes students should be held
to a much different standard than other mem-
bers of the University community.
This is the fourth in a five part
editorial series explaining changes
in various University policies that
occurred over the summer.

The perils
By JOE KINNEY
When it comes to judging
whether economic policy is
acceptable or not, I do not per-
ceive Americans utilizing their
rational mental faculties. In-
stead of judging economic
policyon a rational basis,
Americans appear to utilize a
sense of feel in judging such
matters. If economic policy
feels good, it is judged accept-
able. It does not matter where
the economic policy can ratio-
nally be expected to take the
country in the future. Ameri-
cans judge economic policy on
today's results only. There is
no apparent concern for the fu-
ture.
This is one way of viewing
Americans. It is not the only
way however. One could pos-
tulate that instead of myopia
being present, Americans are
simply an extremely exploit-
ative society today. Present day
Americans can be viewed as
being extremely exploitative of
future Americans. This view is
supported by the economic
policy Americans have adopted
in the past twenty years.
For nearly 200 years,
Americans virtually did not
borrow wealth at the federal

o deficit spending
level. The only exceptions to country embraced
this fact occurred during wars nomic policy of uti
and during a five year period of moth annual federa
severe economic depression. practices to subsid
At all other times, significant These facts lea
wealth simply was not bor- conclusion that the
rowed at the federal level. system of governm
But beginning in the 1970's, nerabilities previc
a new development occurred. ticed. Democracy
For the first time, the U.S. gov- governing intelli
emnment began borrowingenor- society that is depe
mous magnitudes of wealth for values and knowl
no perceived purpose otherthan zens.
to subsidize the standard ofliv- If citizens begin
ing of present day Americans. the welfare of futu
This occurrence represented a of if they are misin
radical change in economic cerning ideas relev
policy not only for the United erly managing a cc
States but for the entire world. will vote into bein
Never before had a country ing intelligence t
launched itself into borrowing these citizens' poo
wealth on an indefinite basis misconceptions.I
for the purpose of subsidizing alone therefore do
the living standards of its citi- antee a society tha
zens. governed with ar
But this development did protective level ofi
not occur in isolation. The per- over the long term
ceived personal values of As strange asI
Americans appeared to experi- ment sounds, I do n
ence dramatic change at that is unreasonable. W
time as well, as evidenced by sonable is for peop
new abortion laws, the growth any economic entil
of single parent families and an a country, can bor
increase in crime rates. Evi- indefinitely for n
dence suggests that traditional pose than to allow
moral beliefs of Americans live higher standai
began changing dramatically than would otherw
at roughly the same time our sible.

a new eco-
lizing mam-
l borrowing
ize citizens.
ad me to the
democratic
ent has vul-
usly unno-
produces a
gence for a
ndent on the
edge of citi-
nto not value
ure citizens,
formed con-
vant to prop-
ountry, they
Lg a govern-
hat reflects
r values and
Democracy
es not guar-
at it will be
responsible,
intelligence
1.
this assess-
not believe it
'hat is unrea-
le to believe
ty, including
rrow wealth
o other pur-
w people to
ds of living
wise be pos-

On hate
I am a Jewish student here at the
University and from this perspec-
tive, Iwant to draw attention to those
who embrace an ideology of hate,
but think themselves above the natu-
ral processes of this democracy.
Central to this is the recognition that
a number of Jewish students here,
including myself, have at times im-
mersed themselves so fully in the
odd dynamics of college-style liber-
alism (Jewish political power being
part of the problem), that we have
begun to lose sight of important his-
torical lessons.
Since the Holocaust, world Jewry
has vowed to never again allow pub-
lic figures to appeal to the base in-
stincts in people by reverting to anti-
Semitic slander. I, for one, was not
afraid to call for NAACP leader
Benjamin Chavis' ouster, nor for the
censuring of Nation of Islam top I
deputy Khallid Muhammed. No
strain of anti-Jewish bigotry must be
allowed to survive, in the eyes of
many, and no one should doubt the
willingness of even secularized Jews
to fight that battle. If blacks and Jews
are ever to unite politically, Jews
and non-Jews alike must affirm that
racism and anti-Semitism are intol-
erable - period.
After my first term here at Michi-
gan in the fall of 1992, I travelled
back to my home in Florida for the
"holiday" break. Over dinner with
my parents and some of their friends,
I somehow managed to say that, as
Jews, our oppression has been mini-
mal in the annals of history, com-
pared to the oppression of other
groups. I was quickly berated my I
mom's good friend, Patty, who said
that Jewish youth today are out of
touch with reality - devoid of any
historical perspective - in a futile
void where talk of a Jewish interest
is anathema. But I was a socialist
then - a radical! - and I gave no
ground. It took me awhile to learn, to
stand strong and not to be afraid to be
a Jew in the leftist chic-ness of Ann
Arbor, Michigan.
I know that this column deals
with a topic that is a contentious one.
But the issue that I bring up is one
that has for too long been forced into
the closet in the political discourse
on college campuses, at least for
Jews. The argument is often made
that it is unreasonable or unfair for
individuals or for organized Jewish
groups to criticize, in the harshest
terms, the anti-Semitic ravings of
black public figures. To do so would
be to dictate the terms - to set the
parameters - of what black leaders
can and cannot say. Nothing could
be further from the truth.
This past summer, CCNY Pro-
fessor Leonard Jeffries, a noted anti-
Semite, advised the Detroit school
board's faculty, in an official capac-
ity -meaning that he was paid with
Michigan tax dollars. But some mem-
bers of the Detroit school board
stepped in, stating that it was out of
line for the Anti-Defamation League
to take issue with Jeffries - it was
none of their business. Who were

these Jews anyway? Here is a blacki4
man helping a predominately black
school district improve its curricu-
lum, they say. Yes, this is true, but to
legitimize a man's hate (with public
funds!) makes all of us complicit.
Moreover, it is ridiculous to suggest
that someone be insulated or exempt
from public criticism. This is analo-
gous to the case of the Christian far-
right. They throw deadly barbs at the
President of the United States'
(charges of murder!)--without any
foundation -and then have the gall
to say that the Democrats are engag-
ing in Christian-bashing when they
come to the defense of their man,
Bill. No one can expect to enter into
the political arena and make inflam-
matory statements or disingenuous
accusations and be free from debate.
This is what freedom of speech is all
about-the exchange of ideas. When
Nation of Islam leader Louis
Farrakhan calls Judaism a "gutter
(or some accounts say, dirty) reli-
gion" and Muhammed asserts that

The "Plus" in Entree Plus
Expansion of debit system only beginning

Kinney is an economist

magine this: you're on a date at a fancy
restaurant in Kerrytown one evening after
an expensive dinner. At the cash register, the
host asks, "And how will you be paying for
this?" Without flinching, you reply, "Entree
Plus." You plop down your student ID card, he
swipes it through the credit card reader, and
says, "Thank you. Goodnight."
Sound like a dream? A fantasy? Next Sep-
tember, if all goes well, it will be reality. The
University HousingDivision is currently work-
ing on a plan to expand the Entree Plus system
to include off-campus retailers.
If the University can find a suitable bank to
serve as a partner, and if a few more adminis-
trative details can be worked out, students will
be able to use their card at any retailer on the
system. "We know that students want (a larger
Entree Plus system)," said program director
Larry Durst.
Once the new system gets going, it could
conceivably include more than just campus
area merchants; the system could eventually
work at any retailer that accepts ATM cards on
that bank's network.
The only catch: if this system is to work,
students will have to get new ID cards again.
Regrettably, current banking laws mean stu-
dents can't get them re-encoded like last sum-
mer - instead new cards with new photos will
need to be produced. But if the Entree Plus
office can somehow streamline the process,
it'll be a small price to pay for the benefits of
the new system.
For the new Entree Plus system to work, it

associated with the new card. Students do not
want to pay seventy-five cents each time they
use Entree Plus, the way some ATM's oper-
ate. If students are forced to pay a fee, they will
just go back to paying cash rather than using
Entree Plus. The key to avoiding the need for
a fee will be keeping the computer network
system efficient - as it is now - so that the
University and the bank do not have to charge
students for this service.
Second, both the University and students
must act to ensure that stores which accept
Entree Plus don't raise their prices once they
have the greater market access promised by
the card system. The University has been
moderately successful with this problem at
the Union Bookstore. Students will also have
to keep an eye on campus area stores to make
sure that their prices stay in line once the
system is introduced.
Finally, there must be an efficient way for
students to keep track of their account bal-
ances. The machines that we use now display
the account balance after each transaction, but
current credit card technology makes it im-
possible for most card readers to do this.
Perhaps ATMs could be adapted for this pur-
pose.
So far, the Entree Plus system has been a
tremendous success. The University has shown
a commitment to keeping prices down and
providing useful services to students. Last
year, students purchased $8 million worth of
books, meals and products with their ID cards.
It's time to expand the system so both students

A solution to the campus parking nightmare

To the Daily:
In light of the recent over-
crowding of commuter parking
lots at Glazier Way and Crisler
Arena, I would like to bring up
some information I obtained
from Susan Kirkpatrick, the
director of University Parking
Services (UPS).
At a meeting on January 24,
1994, I suggested to her that
due to the sparseness of the so-
called "reduced rate" lots, that
at least one of them be restored
to commuter parking. She flatly
rejected that idea. Also, when I
suggested abolishing the
present system and having all
current reduced rate and com-
muter spaces available for a
small fee (say, $5 - sure beats
that parking ticket), she said
that "Parking Services is com-
mitted to providing free park-

ing." What does that mean to
us? Crowded, and, in the case
at Glazier Way, substandard.
Trust me, Mrs. Kirkpatrick, you
won't lose any money by re-
storing one of those precious
reduced rate lots to free park-
ing.
According to statistics
given to me at that meeting,
North Campus commuter park-
ing decreased last year in spite
of the Glazier Way lot expan-
sion. Two years ago, there were
725 spaces at three lots
(Hubbard, Hayward, Glazier),
as opposed to 709 at Glazier
now. Also, one University bus
driver said UPS had planned to
further decrease commuter
parking at Crisler.
To be fair, UPS is not
funded by the Regents, but
rather by staff-paid and reduced

rate permit sales. (A shame -
the Regents could have spent
that North Campus Bell Tower
money on improving the park-
ing situation.) That does not get
UPS off the hook, considering
the wasted parking in the re-
duced rate lots.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick, I urge you
to end this bullcrap. I strongly
and openly suggest that the
Hubbard lot be commuter park-
ing once again. The reduced
rate permit holders there can be
transferred to the Hayward lot,
and then we can see what hap-
pens from there.
Thank you.
Mark Rabinowitz
MSA Representative
LSA Senior



IL~