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