4- The Michigan Daily - Monday, February 27, 1995 bzE Cirirt&i JAMES R. CHo BENEATH THE PALMPSEST 420 Maynard Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan I I MICHAEL ROSENBERG Editor in Chief JULIE BECKER JAMES NASH Editorial Page Editors Agenda for Women heads down the wrong path 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. Renew d'ping the Union Fix it- but don't privatize it H oping to inject some fresh life into campus student centers, the University Board of Regents recently approved a $26.5 million renovation plan for the Michigan Union, North Campus Commons, the Michi- gan League and University Health Services. While the board routinely rubber-stamps administration requests for construction fund- ing, this most recent proposal came with a twist: Instead of subtracting the money from the University's general fund, the construc- tion will be paid for with a per-student sur- charge. The regents' decision to charge each student $35 to fix the Union and other build- ings was a timely move dictated by the need to improve student organizations' office space and by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), federal legislation that mandates pro- viding equal services to people with disabili- ties. But the regents must be cautioned not to bankroll every building upgrade on the backs of students. At their February meeting, the regents increased the University's infrastructure fee to $185 - up $35. The increase was ear- marked for improvements to the student cen- ters and UHS, money well-spent as long as it stays there. These buildings are crucial to student life - imagine a campus without student organization offices, fast food res- taurants and banking centers. But these build- ings are not perfect. While the University has prevented them from falling into disrepair, it has not brought them up to the standards of the ADA, passed in 1990.. This is no time for the University to drag its feet on ADA. The regents have wisely avoided that, allocating about two-thirds of the money for upgrades to make the facilities more accessible to people with disabilities. In this singular instance, the University is correct in lumping the construction costs with the line item on tuition bills. The re- gents' vote, however, should not set a prece- dent for the University to bill students for repairs. Could the regents charge students to install new carpeting in the Fleming Build- ing? Conceivably - but they should not. Republican Regents Deane Baker and Andrea Fischer Newman of Ann Arbor voted against the plan to fix the Union, Commons, League and UHS with a student surcharge. They correctly recognized the dangers inher- ent in taxing students for individual con- struction projects - but failed to recognize this as a special case. Baker and Newman should strongly resist any further University scheme to indiscriminately impose construc- tion fees on students. More disturbing was Newman's sugges- tion --voiced in passing at the regents' meeting - that the Union be privatized. The Union has been a student center for all of its 90 years, not a miniaturized strip mall cater- ing to corporate profits. Private owners would not be sympathetic to underfunded student groups who want to maintain their Union offices - why not put a bookstore there? The regents should be commended for upgrading the University's student centers. Although the fiscal source for the construc- tion raises important questions, in this case the end justifies the means. Even Baker and Newman - while opposing the project - express valid concerns. Accessible and well- maintained buildings have always been stu- dent desires; it is heartening to see the regents share those hopes. Last spring, President James J. Duderstadt kicked off his Michigan Agenda for Women, a bold initiative to improve the climate for women at the Uni- versity. In town meetings with faculty, staff and students, Duderstadt has been soliciting advice and vigorously pushing the agenda. Never during his tenure as president has Duderstadt been so visible on campus. With the initiative, Duderstadt seeks to create a climate at the University that fosters the success of women faculty, students and staff and achieves full representation, par- ticipation and success of women faculty in the academic life and leadership of the Uni- versity. The president hopes to reach gender parity in the participation and representa- tion of women at the University by 2000. He recently told a group of resident advisers that fewer than 9 percent of the senior faculty are women and that women are underrepresented in leadership posi- tions at the University. The administration is offering incentives to departments to hire women, in particular women of color, and strong disincentives if they don't, he said. "Simply opening doors is not enough," Duderstadt declared. But for the past decade, scientists have been telling us that differences exist be- tween the sexes and that the sexes do indeed excel in different areas. Are we ready for the reality that some fields and areas of study will continue to be dominated by men, oth- ers dominated by women? Studies show a substantial male advan- tage in visual-spatial abilities and higher mathematical reasoning. In the fields of engineering and other occupations that re- quire spatial ability, is it wrong for men to participate in higher numbers than women? Should men be punished? Adding to the wealth of scientific evi- dence, last week a team of researchers from Yale reported in the journal Nature that brains of men and women are in fact bio- logically different. So what's new? Scien- tists have shown that differences in emo- tional expression, behavior and spatial rea- soning ability between the sexes result from differences in the brains of men and women. Science aside, we seem entrenched in the general premise that sexual differences are insignificant and that male and female brains essentially function along the same wavelength. We're fearful that stressing the differences would mean facing the wrath of ardent feminists. The denial of these differ- ences is a remnant of the '70s feminist movement: Sentiment at the time espoused views that sexual equality hinged upon dis- missing these sexual differences. But the coupling of sexual differences, where differences abound - to race - where, contrary to what some people be- lieve, differences have not been proven - has sparked ongoing controversy and may prove shortsighted. Take the underrep- resentation of women in certain fields of study -an issue the agenda for women has targeted as a problem. Some would say this is due to systematic oppression and discrimination. But never has anyone sug- gested that this may result from the free will of women who simply may not be attracted to the same activities as men. The reality of the situation is the agenda places intense pressure on department heads to hire women for openings, lest-they face intense pressure by the provost's office if recruitment goals are not met. How do you measure the success of the agenda without annual press conferences extolling the nu- merical improvements of the program? Recommendation: Open all the doors, yes, and let men and women compete on the same, level playing field wherever they so desire. In all fairness the University should make promotions based on merit without imposing sexual quotas or affirmative ac- tion programs. Of course, defending such a policy is difficult considering many of the coveted jobs are held by white men. Jim LASSER SHAP AS TOAST The Times They Are a Changin'..- s _ ..V19951 v ; 1992 'g Ri1 L b/N '}qw ~CH E CHNYA NOTABLE QUOTABLE "Every time we need to raise money we seem to go back to the students. I'm not going to sit here for eight years and vote for increases." - Regent Andrea Fischer Newman (R-Ann Arbor), voting against a fee increase for up- grades to University student centers I* Supreme injustice High court should strike down anti-gay act n what should be the final round in Colorado's fight against gay rights, the Supreme Court agreed last week to decide whether an amendment to the state's consti- tution forbidding special legal protection for homosexuals is constitutional. The law - known as Amendment 2- was approved by Colorado voters in 1992, but has been ruled unconstitutional in the state's courts and has been barred from taking effect. The Supreme Court should uphold the lower court rulings and invalidate this law for good. Amendment 2 bars all state and local governments from enforcing policies that forbid discrimination based on sexual orien- tation. It singles out gays, lesbians and bi- sexuals for persecution, denying them pro- tections granted other minority groups. In effect, it states that this group is not entitled to a basic human right: freedom from dis- crimination. Proponents of Amendment 2 claim that protections against discrimination create "new" rights for homosexuals, rights that go beyond the concept of equal protection under the law. This notion is misguided at best, blatantly bigoted at worst. Policies forbid- ding discrimination based on sexual orienta- tion - including those in Ann Arbor and at the University -- are a long-needed step toward civil rights for gays, lesbians and bisexuals. They do not create new rights - on the contrary, they simply protect those basic rights that have historically been de- nied individuals based on their sexual prefer- ence. In addition to the homophobia inherent in Amendment 2, such statutes are objection- able because they target a specific minority group for denial of rights. If today homo- sexuals are singled out, who will be next? African Americans? Muslims? People with disabilities? Discrimination against any of these groups is unacceptable, and laws pro- tecting these groups are badly needed in the struggle for equal protection. If Amendment 2 is judged constitutional, what is to stop voters from passing other laws aimed at other groups? The possibilities are frightening. Despite the rhetoric about "new rights," most support for Amendment 2-- as well as for similar measures in other states - is grounded in simple bigotry, as clear as the racial bigotry so prevalent in the United States in the past. While in recent years racism has, if not been eliminated, at least been made less acceptable, homophobia and discrimination against homosexuals are still all too familiar in this country. Civil rights for gays and lesbians still have not been achieved, and Amendment 2 represents a giant step backward in that fight. The last time the Supreme Court ruled in a gay rights case was in 1986, when a 5-4 ruling decreed that states may outlaw private homosexual acts between consenting adults. With the new justices appointed in the inter- val, the high court should take a less restric- tive view of gay rights. Lower courts have already tossed out Amendment 2 as a viola- tion of the idea of equal protection. The Supreme Court must do the same. LETTERS GOP crime bill not an affront to civil liberty To the Daily: Jordan Stancil seems to again be whining about how unfair life is for Democrats, in his column of Feb. 16. Basically, his won- derful rebuttal of the Republican crime bill dwindled down to pa- thetic name calling: We're geeks because we oppose criminals. Is Jordan actually an LSA junior or a third-grader? Sticks and Stones, I guess. However, the facts are more important. The Republican Crime Bill does revise the exclu- sionary rule, but to suggest that the only judge of "bad faith" would be the officer seems to neglect the idea of a court of law. While a policeman might act in bad faith and say it is good, the judge will determine this cop's credibility, not merely the po- liceman himself. Stancil refers to a 1914 court ruling, but neglects to discuss the Supreme Court's 1984ruling that directly modified the exclusion- ary rule to include evidence ob- tained in good faith with a war- rant later considered to be in- valid. Where is Stancil's criti- cism of this ruling? This impor- tant ruling more than 12 years ago did not bring down justice in America (which is the reason Stancil omitted its reference). So why would our new modifi- cation do so when it is less dras- tic than the Supreme Court's 1984 modification? If it is legal to allow evidence obtained un- der an invalid warrant, is it a that to the face of a husband whose wife was murdered yet the criminal got off free due to one ofStancil's"protections"(i.e. technicalities). I wonder if he could say it to the face of a rape victim whose attacker is released because of a such a technicality. It is so easy for him to sit back and ignore the victims while at the same time feel proud of his defense of liberal ideas ofjustice. We put the victim on trial and set the criminal free? That seems to be Jordan Stancil's view of jus- tice. Well, it isn't mine and that is why my party is trying to stop these technicalities with our Crime Bill. That's being tough on crime, since Stancil obvi- ously needs a definition of the idea like most liberals truly do. Mark Fletcher President, U-M College Republicans LSA junior 'Kill MSA' a Daily position To the Daily: Regarding "Finding irony in the MSA campaign," (Daily, 2/ 17/95) in which Michigan Party MSA presidential and vice presidential candidates Flint Wainess and Sam Goodstein are accused of being responsible for a series of "Kill MSA" editori- als in the Daily during Novem- ber of 1993, I would like to clarify thaf situation. While Wainess and Goodstein were members of the editorial board, I was the edito- rial page editor of the Daily at the time. The Daily's then- liberty to say, they obviously aren't now. I was proud to work with both Wainess and Goodstein during their time at the Daily. They were capable leaders and, judging from my experience with them, would make an ex- cellent president and vice presi- dent of MSA. Andrew Levy LSA '93 Gays still face intolerance "Together we kiss in safety. Apart we kiss in fear. Straight couples feel safe displaying af- fection. Same-sex couples do not. Queers who kiss on the street face verbal assault, beat- ing, and even death. We kiss here today to celebrate our right to express affection for those we love" (Queer Unity Project, 1995). On Feb. 14 a group of gays, lesbians and bisexuals along with their allies converged on the Diag at the University. The awesome sight of at least 100 people being free to be who they were without fear, was empowering. This utopia lasted only an hour. Media covered the event. One would ask why. The reason is, because even to- day, society finds same-gender love taboo, unthinkable and even unacceptable. Today my friend relayed a story to me about how, when picking up the Daily in MLB, he overheard a woman with middle-length hair and a yellow jacket say (when seeing the pic- ture of my friends Matt and Mike article published in the Daily. In response to this, I feel responsible to write in order to illustrate how intolerance is still with us. Our utopia of the Kiss- In has gone. What would I have said if this woman was next to me? I don't know, maybe noth- ing. On the other hand I may have pointed out the compul- sory heterosexuality which sur rounds us in everyday life; through television, by walking on the street, in our classes, and especially on Valentines Day. We, as gay, lesbian or bisexual, have a right to express our af- fection as much as any straight person. The problem is, we are targets of hate and violence if we take that risk, (like the gay basing of weeks ago that took place near Espresso Royale on State Street). We at the Kiss-in heard these stories of hate, we hear them almost every day. However, we were empowered through our numbers and our chance to unify. Visibility IS the answer. We won't go back to our closets and shut the door behind us. Visibility, education and dialogue are the key. To that woman and to the people out there who made such comments today (about the pic- ture and the article), just look around you and see how your straightness is affirmed. Watch how you can hold hands, kiss in public and end up on any televi- sion screen. Think of the strength it must take us to move forward and to create justice for our people. It is time for a change. We aren't in the 1890s anymore, we're in the 1990s Thines are HOw TO CONTACT THEM University Housing Division 1500 Student Activities Building Alan Levy, associate director 70-40