4 - The Michigan Daily - Tuesday, November 29, 1994
hie r iLu7~i~


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

'Let's lift the arms embargo. And let's at least let
the Bosnians defend themselves.'
- Republican Senator Bob Dole, on a solution to the
current debacle in Bosnia
VoUN6TIUK ES IKE.
US WILL R TAINCLY
MOVEE TH IS COuNTR
fbRWARD !

Natural

Unless otherwise noted, unsigned editorials reflect the opinion of a majority of the Daily's editorial hoard. All
other articles, letters, and cartoons do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Michigan Daily.

intelligence
Two high school students take a
test. Wendy Workethic does every-
thing she can to prepare: outlining
the chapter, studying her notes, read-
ing the book again. Calvin Butter-
ball, on the other hand, flips through
the book in hurry and watches re-
runs of "Alf" the night before the
test.

:1

The Neenan Proposal
Student would be allowed at regents' table

woweeks ago, MSAPresidentJulie Neenan
proposed that the Board of Regents allow
the MSA president to sit at the regents' table
during the monthly Board of Regents meet-
ings, in addition to including a monthly MSA
report in the regents' agenda packet. The pur-
pose of the seat at the table would not only be
to answer questions regarding the MSA report
(like executive officers answer questions re-
garding their own reports), but also to voice
student concerns, when asked. The regents
should immediately accept Neenan's entire
proposal.
While some members of the current Board
of Regents have hinted at or publicly stated
support for some student representation on the
Board at one time, now, as Neenan is seizing
the initiative on this frequently discussed is-
sue, it seems as if these previous supporters are
beginning to waiver. Some of the regents ex-
pressed valid concerns - but they are con-
cerns that can quickly be answered. Others
resorted to the argument that if the MSA
president served as a sort of non-voting student
regent, other constituencies would seek the
same opportunity. But for instance SACUA,
the faculty's governing body, is demanding no
such thing, as their avenues to influence the
administration are more substantive.
Students are not demanding to be given the
same treatment as elected statewide officials.
Students simply want an opportunity to voice
their concerns and present their unique per-
spective to the governing body of the Univer-
sity. The Neenan proposal is a perfect way to
do this without changing the nature of the
Board. The regents should accept it in full.
Moreover, this should be a non-partisan
issue. The primary purpose of the University is
to educate students-it is the student body that
the University was first created to benefit,
although many here at the University seem to
have forgotten this. Regardless of whatever
other groups have a financial stake in the
University, it is the student body that is the key
to its survival and success. A University that
fails to provide a setting in which students feel
that their administration is accessible and rep-
resentative is a University that has over-
stayed its welcome. It will not be able to attract

future leaders, as high-caliber students will
venture into an environment more receptive to
their needs and concerns.
But who is to do the representing for stu-
dents? Student concerns, after all, are far from
homogeneous. The best option, as presented
in the Neenan proposal, is the MSA president
or vice-president. While MSA elections are
imperfect, they are the best option available
for choosing a student leader. Perhaps allow-
ing the MSA president or vice-president this
new opportunity will increase the visibility of
the positions, thereby further legitimizing stu-
dent government. The realization of that goal
would benefit students and administrators
alike. It should also be noted that the Vice
President for Student Affairs, and this is not
meant to disparage the individual holding that
position, cannot adequately represent students;
rather, he or she can only represent the Uni-
versity administration's idea of what student
life means. Students will never feel fully com-
fortable relying on an ombudsman or a stu-
dent affairs representative- they need one of
their own to turn to.
Granted, allowing a student to sit at the
regents' table during meetings wouldbe largely
a symbolic gesture, for the student would not
be involved in every issue discussed by the
Board and would not have the power to vote.
But perceptions and symbols can go a long
way in strengthening relations - such an
olive branch to students is long overdue. Many
of the University's peer institutions, such as
Michigan State, Ohio State and large state
schools in the West, have at least a non-voting
student regent on their governing boards; ev-
eryone at such schools, from students to re-
gents to the university presidents, support this
position and have only had good experiences
with such a position.
Enacting the Neenan proposal would ben-
efit the Board through the insight they would
receive regarding student concerns and the
increasedrespect the Board wouldhaveamong
students. Furthermore, it would prove that the
Board is truly more concerned than ever with
establishing a solid relationship with the stu-
dent body-one that transcends simple rheto-
ric and embraces mutual discourse.

If they end up making the same
grade on the test, which one im-
presses you more? In my high
school, the answer was definitely C.
Butterball. Hard work and studying
meant you were a nerd. Making
good grades without effort, how-
ever, was the essence of cool. The
phenomenon continues into college:
the goal is to look like you're having
all the fun in the world, and then
study like a fiend behind closed
doors.

Socioeconomics should not influence grades

To the Daily:
I am writing in regards to
Mr. Morgan's letter in The
Daily on 11/23/94, in which he
proposes a new grading system
where each student is assigned
a factor E, ranging from 1.00 to
1.50 and based on socioeco-
nomic factors of that student,
that would be multiplied by the
student's grade in a course to
obtain the final grade. This
method was suggested to help
improve graduation rate for
minorities, as it would theoreti-
cally overcome socioeconomic
problems. However, there are
several problems that would
arise if such a system did exist.
First, let's consider a course
that has 500 total points in it,
and toget an A, you need450 of
those points. Take, forexample,
your white wealthy male stu-
dent with an E of 1.00. To get
an A, he would need to collect
450 points. Now take a minor-
ity raised in the inner cities,
who would have an E of 1.50.
He would only need to earn 300
of the 500 points to get an A in
the course. Thus, the second
student would not need to work
as hard, or could even skip a
test or two, but will end up with
the same grade as the first stu-
dent. This is not only reverse
discrimination, butitwouldalso
harm the minority student, for
by being able to slack off, that
student will not have a chance
to learn what all can be learned
Same-sex
marrlages are
based on love
and friendship
To the Daily:
The period of time which
saw the implementation of
health care benefits to same sex
partners of U of M staff has
drawn to a close. During this
two week period of enrollment,
the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Pro-
grams Office distributed 40 reg-
istration packets, in addition to
the packets sent by the Benefits
office. We also assisted 12
couples with domestic partner-
ship registration.
I became angered when I
read the letter in the Nov. 22nd
Daily entitled "same sex mar-
riages not beneficial to soci-
ety." The author was unclear of
his facts, and his reasoning was
faulty, although his feelings are
not unique. Perhaps he simply
has not experienced the gift of
knowing lesbian, gay or bi-
sexual people.
As with heterosexual mar-
riage, lesbian and gay relation-
ships exist for the purposes of
mutual comfort, bodily union
and the building of commu-
nity At .n tme wihemn hjtt.

in the class. In order for this
system to work, yet not give a
significant advantage to the
minorities, the maximum E
would have to be 1.05, which
would require that the second
student earn 429 points in the
above case.
But even still, this system
automatically stereotypes stu-
dents. I have met several stu-
dents (not all at U of M) that
were highly intelligent and
were raised in poor socioeco-
nomic positions. I consider
them smarter and better off that
some white rich male students
I knew as well. By using such
as system as described, you are
automatically saying to a stu-
dent, "Well, you had a poor
childhood, and pooreducation,
so you won't be as smart as
everyone else, so here's some-
thing to help you along." Al-
though I do agree that there is a
connection between how one
was raised and their intelligence
level, I don't think that is the
only factor in determining how
well one can perform in school
and life.
I cringe at the concept of
having to assign this E factor
for every student. I am sure
there would be enough pres-
sure by outside groups, such
that the 'average' student's E
value would need to be written
out to 20 decimal places just so
every single socioeconomic
factoris considered equally and
could benefit from the experi-
ences and lives of lesbian, gay,
and bisexual people.
Most lesbian, gay and bi-
sexual people use the language
of friendship when speaking of
our relationships. We speak of
equals who delight in each
other's company and have con-
cern of each other's well-be-
ing. We conjure up images
inclusively, and our most im-
portant relationships become
part of our network of friend-
ships which sustains and nour-
ishes us.The concept of friend-
ship admits diversity, and gay
and lesbian people are nothing
if not diverse. Free from the
historical model of marriage,
gay and lesbian people are able
to structure relationships in a
way that allows growth and
development to emotional ma-
turity in each other's love.
Although marriage in the
traditional sense is not yet avail-
able to us in any state in the
United States, lesbian, gay and
bisexual people in same sex
partnerships are constructing
our lives through services of
affirmation, through covenants
of friendship, and through cel-
ebrations of love. It is through
these powerful constructs that
I give am grateful for my part-
ner, our children, and our
friends. We are your neigh-
bors, your physicians, your
fannkam %Y^~~1.nv. c v n

fairly. And, of course, there
would also be hundreds of com-
plaints, by both students and
outside groups, that one par-
ticular factor has too much
weight. Just the task of devel-
oping such a system would be
incredibly huge, time wasteful,
and will cost more of the
student's dollar to develop.
Minorities already have an
advantage over most white
males: there are many more
scholarships available to mi-
norities than for the average
American. True, there are defi-
nitely not enough scholarships
to go around to every student,
but for many minority students
as well as for white males, that
scholarship is the only thing
that would allow them to go to
school in the first place, and in
every case, they did not get it
because they were socioeco-
nomically impaired, but be-
cause they showed intelligence
and leadership to get it. Fur-
thermore, just to get into the
University, you have to have
shown these qualities on your
application, so, by default, ev-
eryone who attends U of M has
already been determined to be
an outstanding student. Thus,
imposing a biasing element into
the grading will just screw up
the works.
Michael K. Neylon
Engineering Graduate
Student
Nike deal
with 'U'
should be
investigated
To the Daily:
Nothing that Nike makes is
made in America! Nike is re-
sponsible for largejob losses in
the USA. Nike shoes are made
mostly in sweatshops by pris-
oners, women and children. At
labor rates that wouldn't allow
any worker enough money to
buy even one Big Mac a week!
If production quotas are not
met, the workers are often se-
verely beaten.
Because of human rights
violations which Nike tolerates,
several companies which are
far moreresponsible have made
the decision to stop doing busi-
ness with China, among them
the Levi Strauss and Reebok.
The people at U of M who
are responsible for this deal
should be dismissed, and the
entire deal should be canceled
and reevaluated by administra-
tors who still consider fair trade,
equal opportunity and the in-
tegrity of U of M more impor-
tant than the amount of money
in their pockets!
If there is any misinforma-

This view isn't solely attribut-
able to the attraction of getting some-
thing for nothing. My classmates
were also convinced that getting a
good grade without studying meant
you were smart. More accurately, it
meant you were "naturally" smart
- that you had inborn talent as
opposed to something you worked
and struggled for.
This admiration for"natural" tal-
ent has frightening implications in
the wake of recent books like The
Bell Curve by Charles Murray and
the late Richard Horrenstein. The
book is at the center of the debate
over talent vs. effort, innate intelli-
gence vs. hard work and motiva-
tion.
IQ tests and their antecedents
(such as the SAT, GRE and LSAT)
purport to objectively measure over-
all cognitive ability. What is impor-
tant here is not whether this general
ability is genetic or environmental
(the nature/nurture debate), but
whether it makes a difference in life
outcomes.
Murray and Horrenstein use a
lot of paper proving that they do,
and proceed to overgeneralize their
findings into social policy, racial
differences and lots of other places
where they don't belong. What they
don't mention is that the jury is still
out on the question of testing and
outcomes.
Take the SAT, for instance. Not
only can it be coached, but your
score on the SAT doesn't do a very
good job of actually predicting how
well you do in college. SAT scores
predict only about 13% of the vari-
ance in college grades. Though there
is no objective way to measure or-
ganization, motivation and effort,
those factors probably have a lot
more to do with how well you do in
college. High school grades, for in-
stance, do a better job of predicting
college grades than the SAT does
- despite the large differences in
high schools.
Especially once you're past high
school, natural talent will only get
you so far. Take my friend Scott -
he barely scraped by in high school,
but aced his SATs and got a schol-
arship to college. A year later he'd
dropped out, just as unable to study
in college as he'd been in high
school. The late bloomer who comes
into his own in college does exist,
but the point is that all the natural
intelligence in the world will not get
you out of bed in the morning or
open the book for you.
Yet we still reserve our highest
praise for the "natural" genius.
Somewhere between the Protestant
work ethic and the late 20th century
we seem to have lost our admiration
for the hard worker. Finesse and
being cool is more important. Much
of it goes back to youth culture: it's
not cool to care about your grades,
so the only acceptable way to do
well is by mistake (which you can
then call talent). By all accounts,
this attitude is one of the things that

0

0

Termlimitt--hypocrisy
Republicans see the light in the term limit debate

Last week, a number of the more prominent
epublican members of Congress made
remarks that seemed contrary to their previous
calls for term limitations. They now seem to
believe that limiting the number of terms a
member of Congress may serve is no longer
necessary. While some point to this as proof
that Republicans are nothing more than politi-
cal expedients, perhaps it is proof that the GOP
has seen the error of its ways on an issue critical
to our legislative process.
A hot button issue in this past election, term
limitations seemed to many people, both poli-
ticians and voters alike, to be a good idea. A
great deal of Americans believed that the cur-
rent crop of legislators were out of touch with
the electorate. They had been in office for too
long, and had lost both a sensitivity for the
issues and the trust of voters in their home
districts. Many saw term limits as a way to
periodically bring fresh, new blood to the
system, thereby creating a more responsive
Congress. Unfortunately, as good as this idea
may look on the surface, it poses many dangers
to our system of government.
The most serious problem with term limits
is that they produce the exact antithesis of what

say even hyperresponsive - bending too
much to the will of the electorate. That is how
it should be, though. From the nation's begin-
ning, Congress was intended to be highly in
touch with the people, and the best way to
assure its responsiveness is to keep members
of Congress accountable to the voters.
In addition to making Congress less re-
sponsive, term limits also prevent members of
Congress from gaining important expertise,
making Congress less effective. Being a leg-
islator requires an acute sensitivity and under-
standing of the various issues that enter into
national legislation. This comprehension of
the subtleties in the national political land-
scape manifests itself only after years ofexpe-
rience in the body. This is why the most
experienced lawmakers are the heads of the
important committees and subcommittees. If
members of Congress have their terms lim-
ited, they will not develop the experience and
knowledge necessary to govern effectively.
Another problem with term limits is that
they threaten to increase the power of Con-
gressional staffto undue levels. If members of
Congress are forced to leave every few years,
the only people who will "know the ropes"

01


I