Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue


Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

February 03, 1995 - Image 4

Resource type:
The Michigan Daily, 1995-02-03

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

4 -- The Michigan Daily - Friday, February 3, 1995

(The stichtottn trtiv




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


Editor in Chief
Editorial Page Editors

Court and the code: open
hearings, closed minds

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.
Communication cleanup
New committee a good temporary solution

n a new development in the ongoing saga
of the much-maligned LSA Department
of Communication, the faculty advisory com-
mittee for the unit released a report that made
pivotal recommendations about the future
governance of the department. The commit-
tee declared the current body of faculty unfit
to rebuild and govern the department. It rec-
ommended appointing an executive commit-
tee comprised of LSA faculty outside com-
munication, as well as some professors cur-
rently employed in the department. Although
an unusual step - a committee of this sort is
convened only under extreme circumstances
- this course of action could be highly
beneficial, but only as an interim measure. In
the long term, if the Communication Depart-
ment is to be viable, it must be run primarily
by its own professors.
Under the plan recommended in the re-
port, the communications chair would ap-
point an interim executive committee that
would include faculty from within the de-
partment, as well as several professors from
other LSA disciplines. There are a number of
advantages to doing this. First, a large num-
ber of the current faculty within the depart-
ment will be replaced over the next year.
There will not be enough professors with
experience in the workings of the University,
and the running of a University department,
unless some are brought in from elsewhere in
LSA. Also, as the interim committee will be

making decisions about which professors are
retained and which are not, it must not in-
clude faculty who are concerned about keep-
ing their jobs - a category into which many
communication faculty currently fit.
For better or for worse, the Communica-
tion Department is in the midst of significant
changes in its mission and scope. In order for
these changes to be implemented smoothly,
it must be led by experienced people who
understand the University, LSA and the new
credo of the discipline.
However, despite the plan's advantages,
it could prove detrimental if employed on
anything but a short-term basis. If University
divisions are to run smoothly, it is critical
that they be administered primarily by mem-
bers of their own faculties, who are knowl-
edgeable about the unique needs and direc-
tives of their departments. Communication,
except in this extreme case, is no exception.
If the discipline is ever to assume its rightful
place within the structure of the University,
the department must regain its autonomy as
quickly as possible.
Desperate times call for desperate mea-
sures. This plan, although unconventional,
seems to be the most efficient and expedient
solution to the Communication Department's
current ills. However, the University com-
munity must hope that the bodies making this
decision will keep their promise to imple-
ment the plan only on a temporary basis.

Last Friday at 3:37 p.m., millions of
viewers were watching as the double-
murder trial of O.J. Simpson was televised
around the world. Meanwhile, back in
Ann Arbor the administration of the "lib-
eral" University of Michigan was being
forced to open a hearing under the State-
ment of Student Rights and Responsibili-
Perhaps there is a reason why O.J.
Simpson's double murder trial is nation-
ally televised, but you have to threaten a
lawsuit to hold an open code hearing.
Perhaps it's because, unlike the
University's code of non-academic con-
duct, the U.S. justice system actually con-
cerns itself with checks and balances.
Perhaps it's because, unlike Judicial
Advisor Mary Lou Antieau, Superior Court
Judge Lance Ito is actually secure enough
in his ability to do his job that he can
handle the glare of the media spotlight.
Perhaps it's because unlike Antieau,
Ito actually spent years studying the law
he must interpret. In fact, he even took an
exam to prove his knowledge.
Clearly, if a similar exam pertaining to
the code were administered to Antieau
tomorrow, she would have to spend some
serious time holed up in the Grad tonight
cramming. .
Here is one short exchange between

Antieau and faculty chair Peter Bauland
during last Friday's nine-hour hearing for
student Melanie Welch. The exchange took
place after Welch asserted that events that
took place more than six months ago are
no longer valid under the code.
Bauland: "Is that right?"
Antieau: "Is what right?"
Bauland: "Does that render anything
before six months irrelevant?"
Antieau: "I don't think so."
Bauland: "What does the statementsay?"
Antieau: "We'd have to get it out."
All of this would be really funny if it
weren't so disconcerting. Antieau is the
judicial adviser for the code.
"She's an assistant to me," said Vice
President for Student Affairs Maureen A.
Hartford. "She's responsible for the
University's Statement of Student Rights
and Responsibilities."
If you were drawing up a list of things
you would like the judicial adviser to
know, it would probably look something
like this:
1) The code.
Ito is required to know thousands of
different legal procedures and nuances.
That is his job. Antieau is required to
know the workings of a five-page state-
ment. That is her job.
The statement itself, as is well-docu-

mented, is unconstitutional. For instance,
before the code hearing, Welch's case
went through the U.S. legal system - a
novel approach. She pleaded no contest,
and three months later the charges were
dropped. Then last week she was forced to
go on trial again.
In the face of the blatant unconstitu-
tionality of the code - which we already
knew about - this latest news is more
irritating than troubling. Certainly it is not
surprising. With the way that the code has
been handled for the past two years, very
little is surprising.
Basically, what we have here is a code
of conduct that violates several essential
freedoms. If you're charged under the
code, you aren't allowed to have'a lawyer
represent you. During a trial - and you
may notice a slight conflict of interest here
-- Antieau not only serves as virtual pros-
ecutor but also advises the virtual jury on
virtual rulings.
Is it right for the prosecutor to be in on
the jury's decision while the defendant
can't even have an attorney at all?
Ask O.J.
Michael Rosenberg is an LSA junior
and editor in chief of the Daily. Questions,
comments and suggestions regarding his
column - or the entire paper - can be e-
mailed to him at mcr@umich.edu.


- FOR EV E R...

"We're pricing
Michigan's young
men and women
out of an
- State Sen. John
Schwartz (R-Battle
Creek), on a proposal to
create a tax deduction
for college tuition

The global community
U.S. must not back out of U.N. commitment

A s the 50th anniversary of the founding
1 of the United Nations nears, the inter-
national body's very existence is imperiled
by a Republican bill recently introduced in
Congress. This bill carries vital foreign policy
implications, threatening the authority of the
president and the future of the United Na-
tions as a peacekeeping organization.
The proposal as it stands would force the
president to seek congressional approval be-
fore contributing troops to U.N. peacekeep-
ing forces - unjustly usurping the powers of
the president as commander-in-chief. In ad-
dition, the United States would cease to pro-
vide money or supplies to U.N. peacekeep-
ing missions. Instead, the Pentagon would
offer loans, which the United Nations would
have to repay later. Such a shift in policy
would cost the United Nations around $1
billion a year in direct losses. While this
alone is reason for concern, the indirect losses
to come from the bill could be immeasurably
For the United States - the world's sole
superpower - to make such a drastic shift in
policy would have dire consequences for the
future of the United Nations. The symbolic
implications of such an American maneuver
would greatly damage the workings of the
organization. Furthermore, once the United
States cuts off aid to the United Nations,
many other contributing nations will un-
doubtedly follow suit. This accumulated fi-
nancial burden will incapacitate the United
Nations as a peacekeeping body.
The bill awaiting passage in the House of
Representatives is unwise legislation for a
wide variety of reasons. As an attempt to save
the American taxpayer money, it is certain to

backfire. After the U.N. peacekeeping forces
are practically eliminated - a certain result
of such a law - the United States will be
forced to act unilaterally in almost all its
foreign policy endeavors. This will ultimately
cost more than funding a portion of the U.N.
In addition, as the world's strongest power,
the United States will be forced to assume an
even greater role as the "world's policeman,"
which the multilateral actions of the United
Nations have allowed it to avoid.
In the post-Cold War world, U.S. foreign
policy has been amorphous, to say the least.
The United Nations has played a particularly
important role in this new geopolitical world
- a world lacking the definition the Cold
War provided for U.S. policy. Although cer-
tain Republican members of Congress would
like to revert to the days of isolationism, such
a decision is both myopic and unrealistic.
Recent passage of the North American Free
Trade Agreement and the General Agree-
ment on Tariffs and Trade are symbols of
collapsing national boundaries. Technology
continues to make the global community
smaller and foreign policy decisions must
adapt to this general direction.
America's role in this new and changing
world is still being defined. However, if
international trade is any indication, nations
are becoming increasingly interconnected in
a web of telecommunications and decreas-
ingly definitive borders. The United States
cannot back away from the United Nations
- on the contrary, leaders must embrace the
United Nations as a vehicle for multilateral
action and as a necessary part of an increas-
ingly global community.

Race-based scholarships necessary

by Damon Jamaal Walker
In response to the article on
race-based scholarships ("Race-
Based Scholarships," 1/20/95):
the time has come for us as
Blacks, whites and all colors
and creeds to define and rede-
fine racism, discrimination,
prejudice, race and minorities.
Race refers to the community of
people of the same color, creed
and ethnicity. Minorities is the
term-used in the United States
- to refer to people who do not
consist of the majority of the
population. Discrimination re-
fers to the act of being against
individual(s) based on one's
envy, jealousy or greed. Preju-
dices and discrimination repre-
sent similar ideas, but they are
not the same thing. Racism is
the notion that one's race is su-
perior and is usually as a result
of stereotypes, assumptions or
generalizations without prior
knowledge or understanding. I
am defining these terms for two
reasons: 1) People often misun-
derstand these terms and use
them when they are not called
upon, and 2)I will refer to some
of these terms throughout my
response and I wish for people
to have a better understanding
of this article.
Before you assume that I
have received race-based finan-
cial aid, I would like to tell you
that I have not. I support race-
based scholarships and I will
inform you why later in this

norities had 20 years ago still
exist today. In many cases, mi-
norities cannot graduate or even
attend college orientation as Mr.
Chen has because the financial
rewards which are said to be
offered for all races and creeds
are not evenly distributed and in
every eight to nine of 10 cases
are given to "non-minorities."
For every dollar that Uncle Sam
donates, a percentage must be
paid back and some people can-
not afford to pay our uncle. If
having race-based scholarships
is a crime, then having gender-
based scholarships is just as
unlawful. Mr. Chen, I agree that
academic merit and scholastic
achievement should be the ba-
sis for financial aid, but all

scholarships may not out-and-
out ensure all desegregation and
eliminate all racial discrimina-
tion, they will be a stepping
stone for this goal. This will in
turn create opportunities for all
minorities and create a more
racially diversified atmosphere
among college institutions. Here
is another point to follow up on.
If the University is so racially
diversified, then why are only 5
percent of the faculty African
American and only 15 percent
of the student population non-
white? Are these small percent-
ages the only qualified citizens
of the United States worthy of
membership and enrollment in
the University? Another point
to think about. The University

racially diverse institution. Sec-
ondly, one of the factors that
causes racial disharmony here
at the University is under-rep-
resentation of many different
ethnicities. Thirdly, the only
people who are harming actions
by our - not their - grandpar
ents and parents - as oppose
to just fathers and grandfathers
- are people like yourselves
who oppose actions that will
eventually create diversity
among races in society. Last of
all, you and Jeanette Lamer
agree that you all should not pay
the price for things that should
have been done in the past? Wh
are you to say what should and
should not be accomplished at
what time? Are you God? It is

While scholarships may not out-and-out ensure all
desegregation and eliminate all racial discrimination,
they will be a stepping stone for this goal.

people cannot receive limited
"diversified" aid. Therefore,
some people will not attend col-
lege because there is no other.
available aid and Uncle Sam
can only provide so much free
money for 250 million people.
Jessica Pfeiffer states that
she's white and that she was not
as limited in her economic back-
ground as a student of color
might have been. So what if
you're white? I'm Black. There

does not recruit potential en-
rollees in the state of Alabama
- my home state. So why am I
a member of this prestigious
institution? I am a student for
my rank as valedictorian in my
graduating class GPA, my ex-
tracurricular interests and the
fact that my being African
American will help increase a
lower enrollment. of African
Americans and help the con-
tinuous flow of funds to the
U~nivemi~ty_ And niennl iclaim

up to all of us, not just the U.S.
citizens of the 1960s, to end all
racial strife and work for racial
unity and harmony.
People, young and old, it is
now time to stop sitting on our
asses and watch brilliant minds
of the future deteriorate hint
nothing because people such as
Mark Fletcher, Jeanette Larner
and Robert Chen are ignorant of
our history -not white history
or Black history, but history.
We tn nt live in azltnnian

Michigan Student Assembly
Julie Neenan, President
Jacob Stern, Vice President

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan