4- The Michigan Daily - Friday, January 27, 1995

hi 1w id wwiga & Ig

'Please accept my resignation. I don't want to belong to
any club that will accept me as a member.'
- Groucho Marx

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.

Kill the code

Antieau interpretations jeopardize student rights

host of Statement of Student Rights and
esponsibilities (the code) cases that have
cropped up recently indicate that which was
evident to many student leaders long ago:
code Judicial Advisor Mary Lou Antieau
wields altogether too much power. The rea-
soning behind this truth is surely not personal.
In many respects, Antieau has done an admi-
rable job administering a cumbersome and
ambiguous document.
But alas, the daily interpretations of that
ambiguity were bound to eventually lead
Antieau down a troublesome path. Whether
interpreting the Family and Education Rights
and Privacy Act (FERPA) or confidentiality,
open meetings or the definition of harassment,
Antieau has consistently sided with the
administration's self-interest. And there is no
doubt that in almost every instance, the
administration s self-interest is directly anti-
thetical to the self-interest of students.
Antieau's interpretive power has come at the
expense of students' rights.
Several case studies bear out this state-
ment. Take the example of LSA junior Darcy
Niven, who innocently enough decided to
press charges against her ex-boyfriend for
assault and harassment. After winning her
case, her story was reported on in the Daily.
Niven then found herself under the investiga-
tive eye of Antieau, allegedly for providing
the Daily with documents pertaining to the
case. This, according to Antieau, could be
construed as a sort of reverse harassment. A
ludicrous proposition to be sure, especially as
Niven never entered into any sort of explicit
confidentiality agreement. But Niven, look-
ing down the barrel of a Kangaroo Court, and
imagining different levels of sanctioning,
doesn't quite see the humor in the situation.
Still, the Niven case is not the worst of the
bunch. Antieau's decision to deny American
culture doctoral student Melanie Welch an
open hearing transcends the line of bad inter-
pretation - and enters the realm of simple

fantasy.
Welch, and her attorney, maintain cor-
rectly that the code allows for open hearings
upon request - the important disclaimer be-
ing that hearings must remain closed in cases
of "sexual assault or harassment." Clearly,
"sexual" modifies both "assault" and "harass-
ment." Simple harassment cases would never
warrant a blanket prohibition against open
hearings. But Antieau decided against this
lucid interpretation, adopting the position that
all harassment cases must remain closed. Quite
a convenient argument, to be sure.
Last, there are questions surrounding
Antieau's intepretationofFERPA. Courts have
consistently ruled that records coming out of
disciplinary structures similar to the
University's code are not educational in na-
ture, and hence not subject to FEPRA. One
prominent example comes from Georgia,
where the student newspaper sued the Univer-
sity of Georgia and won. But Antieau holds
that code records cannot be released in any
coherent fashion, as this would violate stu-
dents' right to privacy established under
FERPA.
A similar thread runs through all of the
cases, and issues, mentioned above. Time and
time again, Antieau is charged with interpret-
ing the code - and as a result, interpreting
students' future. In almost every instance,
whether the contention involves the accused
or the complainant, Antieau ends up incensing
the students that have used the code. Her
interpretations have lacked credibility; and
lacked sound legal reasoning.
Without a sound system of checks and
balances, the code will only continue to get
worse. Still in its interim status, the code will
again have to go in front of the regents. Based
on Antieau's bald legal interpretations, as well
as the lack of community support the code had
to begin with, the regents would be wise to
send the code back into the historical trash can
of bad ideas.

Quash the code, students

Samuel

To the Daily:
A few years ago, students
stormed the Fleming adminis-
tration building and chanted all
night outside the president's
house because of administra-
tion policies they didn't agree
with. This wasn't the sixties--
it was while Bush was in office,
and while most of us were in
high school. While this is aw-
fully fresh in the minds of ad-
ministrators, most students are
blissfully unaware of the legacy
of (recent!) student protest they
have inherited. Rest assured the
administration enjoys the four-
year student turnover, and the
loss of student "memory" about
the way things used to be.
Back to 1995. On Monday,
Jan. 30th, an anonymous panel
of 50 students is to meet to
amend the Statement of Stu-
dent Rights and Responsibili-
ties. This process of amending
the code has proved as unreli-
able as the code itself. This is
the fourth time a panel has been
convened. This may be the
fourth time it fails.
The code desperately needs
amending. As recently as
Wednesday, an article in this
newspaper described how Mary
Lou Antieau, the Judicial Ad-
visor, manipulated code lan-
guage to deny a requested pub-
lic hearing. Right now the Uni-
versity has their own censored
mock-court, with penalties
ranging from community ser-
vice to expulsion, and the stu-
dents have no way to know
what they're up to. All perti-
nent information in these
records are deleted because of
"privacy reasons," contrary to
the code'sown statement about
releasing information to the
public. What is going on here?
No public hearings? No
releasable records? They're
pulling the wool over youreyes,

students.
Three Amendments are par-
ticularly outstanding. One is
the creation of the
"AdvisorCorp," which would
allow students trained in the
intricacies of the code to be
advocates and advisors of stu-
dents brought under code
charges. The University has
indicated that they would fight
an effort like this because of
legal liability ... but that just
illustrates how foolish the code
really is. The Code and its
mock-court are quasi-legal, and
students deserve to have some
sort of help sorting out this
voluminous document.
The second Amendment is
to change the amendment
policy itself to one of popular
student referendum, a more
reliable process than the 50stu-
dent panel. The third Amend-
ment is to place a supervisory
committee over the adminis-
trators that deal with the code
to ensure less deception and
more accountability.
None of this can happen if
25 out of the 50 panelists are
unable to make it (for the fourth
time). This lengthy letterends,
then, with a simple plea: If you
are a panelist, please do every-
thing in your power to attend
the Monday meeting. If you
know a panelist, tell them both
about the importance of the
meeting and the three amend-
ments I've detailed for you
above.
Above all, remember that
only a few years ago students
found time to confront DPS
officers (then without guns) and
occupy a fortress of a building
for the interests of the student
population as a whole. It would
be nice if 26 students could
make the meeting.
Ethan Kirschner
LSA student

Goodstein?
scum
To the Daily:
I want to say a few things
about the outgoing editor of the
Daily editorial page Sam
Goodstein. Some of you may
know him as this quiet little guy
who walks around in his quiet
little coat with his quiet little
bag. Well don't be fooled. He is
up to no good. Trust me, he is
up to no good.
Walking around smelling
like cigarettes, humming stu-
pid tunes and feeling alone.
Don't be fooled. He should be
fired from the Daily. Hands
down. Babbling about the op-
pressed, the unfortunate and the
misshapen - oh no, don't be
fooled. I have seen this man in
action, I have seen him do his
work. What he did to me is
unspeakable, but I will tell you:
he made me listen to a reading
of Charles Dickens. But not
just a regular reading ... a 67
hour reading! 67 hours of lis-
tening to that man. Because of
this I propose that he be thrown
out of school.
Get him out! Get him out!
Save the dogs, save us all!
Raphael! The Dickens! Dark
Globe! I am fretless, I am
clueless, help us all! Alone.
Peter Hanna Raphael
LSA senior
T he
meritorious
nature of men
of affairs
To the Daily:
Men of affairs drink Beef-
eater and tonic, men of affairs
sit in darkrooms, men of affairs
carve up nations, men of affairs
listen to Thelonious Monk,
Mozart and The Smiths. I love
men of affairs, and I love you.

Various degrees
of delineation.
They creep up on
you, and then
they eat you.
Suppose, for a moment, that the
professor did it in the hall with the
candlestick. Still, is theirjustice in the
world when a group of outgoing edi-
tors can find themselves in the middle
of the Diag wearing only five-o'clock
shadows and corduroys, and none of
the ladies going to class in their prom
dresses will acknowledge them long
enough to spit on them?
This, of course, is-how a bunch of
Allenites (Woody,;the artist, not the
lover) begin a goodbye column. They
begin it that way not because they
have a sense of humor. Demonstra-
bly, they have no such thing, although
they do recognize the humor inherent
in communication majors. They be-
gin thus because they, in complete
seriousness, glance out at a commu-
nity devoid of humor and can muster
no other response.
They remember a day when they were
paramount players in that humorless
vacuum. Thanks Yael, you taught us
much, but you surely were wrong in
your premonitions that the adminis-
tration was a conspiratorial demon.
Surely the code, the only University
policy you supported, was the closest
to an administrative conspiracy you
can find. Much to be done, much to be
done, to be sure; but there is little
question that the mistakes of the Uni-
versity are due less to a grand plan
than to misplaced ideology. If noth-
ing else, you taught us that there is a
sea of division between political cor-
rectness and conservative polemics.
Disagree, but we are to hold onto the
notion that we developed a page based
on an interpretive framework. A
framework of rationality, but also a
framework of justice. We shall for-
ever hope the community -and all in
it, from the Black Student Union to
the College Republicans (if you're
searching, their office can be found
significantly to the right of Adam
Smith's) - found a vehicle for free
expression.
A job for every day this is. But let's be
honest. You lock by six; we're surely
not news editors, living the life of the
Syquester. We learned this from
Yael's successors, those erstwhile
jokers Geoff (sp?) and Jon. Once,
Jon's upside-down smile and his tears
actually turned to anger, as he de-
nounced those petty, p.c. Dailyites
and flocked to the intellectual mecca
of the Independent, readership four,
including us. Butatleast Jordan started
it (with Lindsay.)
Then there was the beginning. The
real beginning, the start of us. Flint
and Sam. Maybe I'm not worthy,
maybe neither of us are, but that time
was it. Hope, idealism and the muses
led us, and we were all too willing to
follow (weren't we, Fyodor?) When
content led to discontent and Andrew
we went on, the biggest joke in

jokeland. Hard to believe that it ends,
but we'll get over it.
Disappearing grayscales led to us,
and we chomped at the bit. Chomp,
chomp. The group was gone, the group
that formed the beginning. None of
them care anymore and that is the way
it should be (isn't it, Leitner?) Econ
led to econ, and ecoland led to Hope,
and before we knew it all was over.
Set the page? Set me.
Iguess that the chronology will never
be complete, the cube will never stop.
But we will stop spinning. Yes, Jon,
the proletariat should rise! Yes, Erin,
you were screwed.
Yes, all, we were lucky.
But you can'tcomplain, you can't say
that it didn't all turn out for the best.
If we could give parting words, a last
phrase, utterance or monster, it would
be to ignore the trivialities, ignore the
arguments, ignore the hardships of
day-to-day life. When it is all over, all
we have are the memories, all we
have are the recollections. Our recol-

*1

Sorry state of the union

President Clinton's State of the Union
address Tuesday revealed what many
Republicans have long suspected and an in-
creasingnumberofDemocratsfear. Succinctly,
President Clinton has sold-out the left for a
tenuous, morally bankrupt spot smack in the
center of the political spectrum. The sad facts
about his address are that it was boring, long
and spineless - instead of sounding like a
watered down version of a moderate Republi-
can, he should have demonstrated to the Ameri-
can people that he stands for something, that
he has conviction. The fact that there is an
intellectual vacuum tormenting the Congres-
sional Democrats, exemplified by Richard
Gephardtcopycatproposal ofaflattax, doesn't
help the president's situation, but it is hardly
an excuse.
The institution of the presidency is not one
blessed with a plethora of formal powers.
Instead presidents muster their power through
moral authority and personal political acu-
men. The State of the Union address clearly
demonstrated President Clinton's lack of con-
viction and his willingness to concede issues
to the Republicans -even issues about which
afightis wholly necessary. Take, forexample,
the issue of a constitutional amendment to
balance the federal budget. Instead of offering
a bogus olive branch to Republicans - by
saying, in effect, that if the Republicans wanted
to pass the amendment they should do so but
also preemptively list how - he should have

lead to a duplicitousness in budgeting unseen
since the smoke .and mirrors of the Reagan
years.
Supporters of the president's strategy of
reconciliation are quick to point out that the
administration will be marginalized if they do
not try to work with the Republicans. They
contend that a president who stands on the
sidelines and screams will only watch the
Contract with America pass untouched and
that a better strategy is to pick their battles and
try to get their way on matters crucial to the
Democratic Party and its base - in addition to
strategic use of the veto. While this strategy
certainly has some merit in theory, the reality
is that President Clinton will be marginalized
further if he continues to demonstrate a lack of
leadership. Men of affairs lead.
Another example of his political bumbling
is his proposal to raise the minimum wage.
Instead of making references to how the work-
ing class makes so much less than members of
Congress, ashe didinhis address,he shouldgo
after the source of the problem. Corporate
greed and obsession with profit. It is high time
that President Clinton stand up for working
men and women across America - men like
Jordan Stancil - and attack the source of so
many of their woes: the oppressive, domineer-
ing capitalist structure that is the heart and soul
of the American system.
When F.D.R. wanted social change, he did
not ask the Republicans for their hands and he

0

Wainess should be fired

To the Daily:
Passing through the pos-
sessive days of rage has taken
all the strength a man can mus-
ter. As the murderous fascists
march to victory in Bosnia, as.
the suicide victors crash into
martyrdom, I am maddened by
my insensitivity to these trag-
edies. For the demon that I can-
not exorcise is that low-down,
dirty, pretentious, condescend-
ing, disorganized, disoriented,
unshaven, drunken lily pad.
Yes, I speak of outgoing Daily
Editorial Page Editor, Flint
Wainess.
Lest interpretation lend it-
self to misunderstanding, I
speak not from jealousy, not
from crossed paths, but from
strict observance of this would-
be journalist's transgressions.
When he attempted to lec-
ture me on the demerits of the
-_s .-I-a... ..tii.,

longer withhold my antipathy
when I saw the snake slithering
surreptitiously in his black coat
and Satanic gloves, telling his
innocent companion that mo-
nogamy is a bourgeoise preju-
dice.
It is clear that Wainess has
not taken the time to read the
Federalist papers; nor has he
read Dickens or contemplated
Boys Town. In short, he has
travelled down the path worn
by many Daily editors before
him. While imploring the stu-
dent body to action, he has
failed to take into account that
perhaps the student body sim-
ply has no interest in storming
the Fleming administration
building. Students, after all,
simply want to listen to Pearl
Jam, smoke pot, see lots of
movies, drive red Celicas and
date people that look like their

Theodore Burns
a man of affairs


.m