4- The Michigan Daily - Thursday, February 16, 1995
U~~1jet £ibiau&zlg
JORDAN STANCH
The Republican crime credo:
GUEST COLUMN#
01
420 Maynard
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Edited and managed by
students at the
University of Michigan
MICHAEL ROSENBERG
Editor in Chief
JuLEE BECKER
JAMs NAsH
Editorial Page Editors
Freedom for me, but not for thee
Unless otherwise noted, unsigned editorials reflect the opinion ofa majority of the Daily's editorial board. All
other articles, letters, and cartoons do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Michigan Daily.
pfor a vote?
Regents must approve
When the University Board of Regents
convenes today for its monthly meet-
ing, it will once again hear comments on an
issue of utmost significance: a proposal to
allow a student to serve in a non-voting
capactiy on the board. While the matter has
been under discussion for over a year, it has
not yet come to a vote, and may be postponed
again this month. This would be a great
shame -the matter is too important to delay
any longer.
As the governing body for the University,
the Board of Regents makes countless deci-
sions that affect students. From raising tu-
ition to approving the Statement of Student
Rights and Responsibilities, the regents' ac-
tions have direct impact on students' lives.
Yet students have no say in any of these
decisions - they are at the mercy of eight
individuals who are far removed from the
realities of everyday campus life.
Currently, the only way students can com-
municate their concerns to the regents is by
getting in contact personally - something
few students know how to do - or speaking
at public comments during regents' meet-
ings. While both avenues have merit, they
lack the power and perceived legitimacy that
an official regent position would convey.
Even in a non-voting capacity -installing a
voting regent would require an amendment
to the state Constitution - a student regent
would represent student needs and concerns,
factors all too often ignored by the board in
its present form.
In last March's Michigan Student Assem-
bly elections, 97 percent of the student body
approved a proposal to have a student serve
on the board. Despite this overwhelming
student representation
approval, the regents have been dragging
their feet on the issue, finally hearing com-
ments in December but postponing a vote on
the matter. They have tried every tactic to
counter the proposal, from constitutional
claims to cries of unfairness to groups such as
faculty and staff.
Yet these concerns are without rational
foundation. Every other university in Michi-
gan has at least one student on its board -
Michigan State University, comparable to
the University in size, has four non-voting
student regents. The claim that a student
regent would violate the state Constitution is
clearly nonsense. Equally flimsy is the ob-
jection that if students deserve representa-
tion on the board, then faculty, staff and other
constituent groups do as well. While other
groups clearly are affected by regental ac-
tion, and should have a voice in decisions,
students are the ultimate reason for the
University's existence. They are the regents'
most important constituents, and should be
treated as such - with an opportunity for
legitimate representation.
The student assembly and its president,
Julie Neenan, should be commended for their
efforts in bringing this issue to the fore.
However, MSA cannot push through the
proposal on its own. Students must make
their presence known by coming to the meet-
ing and showing the regents the widespread
student support for student representation.
The regents have delayed this matter too
long already. The proposal must come to a
vote this week, and must be passed. To do
otherwise would be to deny the ultimate
necessity for student representation in deci-
sions that affect student life.
As I write this, the evisceration of the
Bill of Rights is proceeding with vigor
in Washington. Yes, that Bill of Rights.
And don't let any College Republican geek
tell you otherwise. Their flyers claim that
the new Republican-controlled Congress is
"tough on crime," whatever that means.
Apparently it means that those parts of the
Constitution that aren't tough enough for
macho-men like Newt simply have to go.
That annoying rule about search warrants
was the first to get the ax.
Here's what happened: An angry band
of white guys in GOP-issue uniforms (navy
blue suits, red-and-blue-striped ties) voted
to allow illegally seized evidence to be used
in federal trials. That's something that pros-
ecutors haven't been able to do since 1914.
Perhaps Newt thinks the 1914 Supreme
Court was part of the counterculture. (La-
dies and gentlemen, Mr. Justice
McReynolds, tripped out on acid.)
At any rate, the House of Representa-
tives passed a bill last week that revises the
exclusionary rule so that only evidence
seized by police officers acting in bad faith
would be inadmissible in court. Have you
ever met a police officer who would admit
in court that he or she seized evidence or
searched a defendant's property with any-
thing other than good intentions? I didn't
think so.
Make no mistake about what this means.
If this bill becomes law, American citizens
could be convicted of federal offenses on
the basis of evidence obtained without a
search warrant. One of the most basic prin-
ciples of the American nation is (or, rather,
was) that the individual should be free from
police abuse. The legal mechanism through
which this really remarkable idea has been
enforced is the Constitution and its provi-
sions that limit what the state, with its vast
physical power, can do to the individual,
who has less power but legal guarantees of
certain rights.
If this sounds simple, that's because it is
-or should be. But perhaps the tightness of
the Republicans' ties has cut off blood flow
to the brain. Or maybe it's the stiff, starched
collars. Whatever the reason, those who
voted for the "Take Back Our Streets Act"
apparently forgot about the concept of
civil liberties.
They seem to think that the goal of the
legal system and of our peculiar and admi-
rable form of constitutional government is
to obtain convictions easily. But, quite sim-
ply, it's not. The Constitution doesn't try to
make convictions difficult, or easy, to come
by. The whole point is to set up protections
against abuses. If that leads to fewer convic-
tions, too bad. The idea is that there are
certain things that the government simply
can't do.
But why aren't people talking about
this? When the president proposed a plan to
- gasp! - provide health care for all
Americans (even poor ones), the response
was massive. People across the nation talked
about "socialized" medicine and the pros-
pect of dying while waiting in some Demo-
crat-conceived, bureaucrat-administered,
big government line in their local emer-
gency room. Harry and Louise expressed
sensible bourgeois skepticism while sitting
at their suburban kitchen table. This was big
news for a whole year.
But the Fourth Amendment appears to
be less important to America than the family
doctor's $200,000 salary. Don't expect to
seeacommercialwhere Harry says, "Honey,
does this mean they can come in and take
our medical bills without a warrant?" "I
guess so," says Louise. "That just doesn't
make sense," replies Harry, with furrowed
brow.
But maybe repeal of the exclusionary
rule does make sense for most Americans.
In fact, it might be only the first step for
Newt and his loyal legions. Maybe next
week the United States of America will
finally have coerced confessions. The vot-
ers would probably be pretty impressed if
the police could use their billy clubs to get
criminals to talk.That would be reallytough
on crime. "But it can't happen here," some
would argue.
To which I would reply, "It is happening
here."
- Jordan Stancil is an LSA junior.
0
IMLASSER, :SSHARP AS TOAST
February 9 1995:
.3.- 9A Sad lay tsr
l Editorial Cartoonists_
C~
a
0two
NOTABLE QUOTABLE
"Whenever there
was a problem,
our answer was
always to create
a federal
bureaucracy. We
have seen that
they don't solve
the problem."
- U.S. Rep. Sam
Brownback (R-Kan.),
leader of a GOPfaction
bent on eliminating four
federal departments
National disservice
Republicans should
S peaking in 1993 of President Clinton's
proposed National and Community Ser-
vice Act, a congressional leader remarked,
"In many ways I like this bill very much. I
like its spirit of trying to reach out for service.
I like its effort to be decentralized and to have
local involvement. I like the degree to which
it emphasizes for young people a sense of
idealism." The speaker: then- House Minor-
ity Whip Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.).
When Clinton conceived the bill during
his 1992 campaign as an alternative to Presi-
dent George Bush's largely ineffectual
"Thousand Points of Light," most Demo-
crats and even some Republicans embraced
its emphasis on volunteerism. The program
- which offered college financial aid in
exchange for community service - seemed
to alleviate the twin troubles of a decaying
infrastructure and skyrocketing higher-edu-
cation costs.
Despite his stated support of the National
Service Act, Gingrich voted against the bill.
in 1993. Fortunately for students, a Demo-
cratic majority in Congress ushered through
the act - albeit with funding caps from the
GOP. Now Gingrich and congressional bud-
get hawks are determined to stamp out the
National Service Act and the body that runs
it, Americorps. This would be a terribly mis-
guided action.
The National Service Act invoked the
spirit with which President John F. Kennedy
introduced the Peace Corps on the steps of
the Michigan Union 30 years ago. Like
Kennedy, Clinton sought to kindle the spirit
of volunteerism in a society obsessed with
not cut Ainericorps
personal gain. But Clinton's program has
been hamstrung from the beginning. Con-
gressional Republicans, in their zeal to pare
away social programs, have restricted
Americorps' funding to such a level that it
cannot fulfill its mission nationally. Yet
Americorps' promise is being proven every
day with its many success stories on the local
level. Three colleges have already commit-
ted themselves to match the $4,725 educa-
tional grant that every Americorps member
earns annually through community service.
Local involvement magnifies the impact
that the National Service Act can achieve -
the federal aid need not be the sole funding
source. But it is the start. If Congress liqui-
dates Americorps, would-be local donors are
likely to find another beneficiary for their
generosity - leaving students out in the
cold.
As the GOP budget steamroller leaves
many social programs in its wake, Republi-
cans must not forget that many of these
programs are worthwhile and deserve to live.
Judicious budget-cutting is one thing - but
scrapping worthy programs like National
Service is dangerous to American society.
Republicans have criticized Americorps as
ineffective, apparently indifferent to the harm
their own budget cuts have wrought. In mak-
ing this criticism, Gingrich should remember
his own words in 1993: National Service is a
worthy cause that deserves bipartisan sup-
port. In the rush to downsize the federal
government, commitment to the ideals of
community service and volunteerism should
not be forgotten.
LErERS
>
Cartoonist unfairly attacked
To the Daily:
I am writing in response to
recent attacks on the creative
ability of the Daily's editorial
cartoonist, Jim Lasser. Recent
letters have focused on Lasser's
slew of cartoons blasting the
University for its now-infamous
Nike contract. In my opinion the
number of cartoons merely em-
phasize the fact that our publicly
funded University should not
receive money from a private
company. I like to think of this
university as a place of higher
learning, not as a billboard.
Tom Herrgott
LSA first-year student
To the Daily:
I would like to respond to a
commentary made by Jeremy
Horelick regarding Michigan
Daily cartoonist Jim Lasser and
his recent depiction of the Michi-
gan Union flying a Nike flag.
True, as of late, Mr. Lasser has
concerned himself with making
a statement about the correla-
tion between the University and
Nike, but he has had every right
to do so considering the fact that
this "relationship" has been so
blatantly displayed in the past
few weeks. When I attended the
Michigan/St. John's basketball
game weeks ago, I was inun-
dated with Nike paraphernalia
and was explicitly told "Just
remember to wear it at the
simply ludicrous, and Mr.
Horelick should try to address
this problem instead of taking
his pathetic frustrations out on
an observant cartoonist. In short,
be a man, Mr. Horelick, and
bitch and moan about the Uni-
versity itself, and not the Michi-
gan Daily and its staff.
Bemardo de Paula
First-year Music student
To the Daily:
I am writing in response to
Jeremy Horelick's criticism of
Daily cartoonist Jim Lasser. In
his letter, Mr. Horellck criticized
the creative ability of Jim Lasser
because he called his attention to
the University's contract with
Nike on more than one occasion.
The question at hand is not Jim
Lasser's creative ability, but
rather how the University had
jeopardized the tradition that has
made it the fine institution it is
today.Thatis JimLasser's point.
The lesson needed to be taught
here is that creative redundancy
does have an objective. At least
one student, Jeremy Horelick,
has become aware of Nike com-
mercialism and the University's
sellout attitude, with Jim
Lasser's he*
Brian McGee
LSA first-year student
To the Daily:
Jeremy Horelick wrote to the
Daily saying that he had a prob-
tic skills. First, I'll bet Jeremy
can't even draw a stick figure.
Then he says that Jim Lasser is
being redundant by showing how
the University is "selling out". I
do not see a problem with Jim
Lasser's artistic display and its
meaning. There is an argument
from Jim Lasser's point of view
and if he cares to show his beliefs
through cartoons, then so be it.
Brad Hammer
LSA first-year student
To the Daily:
It appears as though a certain
cartoonist who draws for the
Michigan Daily has been bashed,
slashed, and putout with the trash.
Who has the right to say one' s
ideas or expressions aren't cre-
ative?
If a person needs to get their
point across to others by depict-
ing the same issue over and over
again, then let it be done. Redun-
dancy shouldn't be the issue.
Creativity lies within the way an
artist chooses to structure his car-
toon around a specific topic.
This can be accomplished
through a number of ways, as
many times as it takestogetthe
artist's point across. The inter-
preter of this note can compare
this redundancy to the numer-
ous letters the Daily should be
receiving on this matter.
Braddford J. Holcomb
Engineering first-year
Hotline ads
misleading
To the Daily:
- In your publication there was
an advertisement which claimed
to a "Problem Pregnancy Help"
phone line. Curious whether or
not this line was a front for anti-
abortionists, Icalled.Thewoman
who answered deliberately gave
me the names of places that do
not permit/provide abortions and
proceeded to preach to me about
abortion.While I don't think it is
wrong if anti-choice lines adver-
tise, it is abhorrent to place mis-
leading ads that prey on women
who are most likely frightened
and lonely. Women, who think
they may be pregnant need to be
supported and given allthe infor-
mation that is available (and le-
gal). Any good pro-choice coun-
seling site such as Planned Par-
enthood will let woman figure
out what she wants-- be it to
have an abortion or carry the
baby to term.
Places like this are often
more concerned with their po-
litical agenda (harass you to
carry the baby and deliberately
give you misinformation) than
giving you the best care possible.
If you are in this position, make
sure you ask if the place supports
abortion as a choice (even if you
are not sure what you'll do), so
that you are given all your op-
tions without pressure or fear.
Thank you.
Almha Ai
0
CONTACT THEM
University President James J. Duderstadt
Office of the President
2074 Fleming Administration Building
i