4 - The Michigan Daily - Thursday, March 16, 1995
(The £idigutn aivg
420 Maynard
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Edited and managed by
students at the
University of Michigan
MICHAEL ROSENBERG
Editor in Chief
JuLE BECKER
JAMEs NASH
Editorial Page Editors
JASON LICTSTEIJASON's LYRIC
Newt's Contract: It slices, it
dices, it soaks the poor!
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.
Indenureilabor
TAs voice concerns; will universities listen ?
Angry over what they characterize as
"slave wages" and poor working condi-
tions, teaching assistants at many of the
nation's universities are pressing their griev-
ances with newfound vigor. TAs at U.S.
universities are burdened by an ever-increas-
ing workload as professors redirect their fo-
cus from teaching to the more lucrative and
distinguished fields of research and publish-
ing. Recent threats by TA unions at several
universities point to a disturbing national
trend to delegate more work to TAs - often
at the expense of undergraduate education -
and pay the TAs poorly.
Yale University TAs have threatened to
strike in April if the university does not allow
a union election. The TAs argue that a major-
ity of the workload is placed on their shoul-
ders, therefore they should be better compen-
sated for their efforts. The TAs at Yale re-
ceive only $9,380 in annual salaries, much
less than their Ivy League counterparts. Con-
sequently, the Yale TAs feel they are being
cheated. The effort at Yale is part of a grow-
ing movement to unionize TAs. Thus far,
TAs at about a dozen campuses, including
the University, have unionized. Similar at-
tempts are being made by TAs at the Univer-
sity of California's San Diego, SantaCruz and
Berkeley campuses, who will vote later this
month to walk off their jobs to gain union
recognition. UCLA graduate students approved
a strike by a 92 percent margin.
These specific cases raise general ques-
tions about whether the duties and responsi-
bilities delegated to TAs are justified. For
example, most TAs, especially in larger
classes, are instructed to grade papers and
exams, facilitate discussion sections, attend
the lecture for the course and make them-
selves available for office hours. These re-
sponsibilities must all be made in conjunc-
tion with the TA attending his or her own
classes, and tending to personal work. Is this
asking too much from TAs? Some feel that
the responsibilities delegated are justified,
simply because that is what they are getting
paid for. This argument, however, overlooks
the fact that TAs are often grossly underpaid.
TAs at the University often hold office hours
without pay, simply to perform what they
feel are the minimum responsibilities of their
jobs.
Ultimately, professors must share the
blame for the unrest among their TAs. Pro-
fessors often distance themselves from day-
to-day instruction and the obligations they
have to their classes because they can pass
the duties on to the TA. As a result, TAs must
assume a greater responsibility and assure
that students' needs are meet. If this be the
case, which is apparently occurring with
greater frequency, universities should reward
TAs with larger salaries. They should not
receive slave wages, which is often the case.
Otherwise, professors must assume a greater
role in the course, and must assure students'
needs are being met. After all, professors'
foremost obligations are their students, so
universities should ensure they are living up
to their responsibilities and are not simply
delegating them to TAs. As long as this trend
continues, TAs will not simply sit idle as
their interests are being trampled upon.
C~Iorporate welfare totalling some $55
billion.
Sounds like something that any decent,
reasonable man or woman involved in the
political revolution of 1994 would want to
take a good, hard look at - ya know,
deficit-cutting, fiscal responsibility and all
is big news these days (and mandatory for
a lunch date with Newt), especially one
running for president in '96. Yet in the
GOP's Contract With The Wealthy and
The Corporately Inclined (OK, America),
there is no mention of a coordinated attack
on corporate welfare, nor of any plan to
consider phasing out wasteful corporate
welfare in the near future, which mani-
fests itself in the form of tax loopholes,
subsidies (the mighty mohair and bees-
wax industries of Texas!) and grants.
Yet according to Luntz, Kristol and the
endless hordes of political prophets and
suitors of Nov. 8-- a date that will live in
infamy - the Republicans' victory is a
actually a mandate for Noot's House of
Horrors to begin slashing the crucial safety
net that provides for the basic physical,
social, material and health needs of poor
and unemployed people in the U.S.A. For-
get "corporate welfare." Food stamps,
lunch programs, housing and energy as-
sistance, welfare benefits - throw 'em all
up in tasty block grants to treaty abrogators
like John Engler and the states, slice 'em
and dice 'em. Kids don't vote anyway.
Welfare moms - hell, who likes them
anyway? Republicans are supposed to be
hard as nails, punitive to the bone, tough
budgetary hawks. Bank on the angry white
male vote and the corporate dollar. Corpo-
A16
rate welfare - never heard of it. Power to
the people - power to the Newtoids, to
GOPAC, to laissez-faire capitalism reincar-
nated. Power to the socially tight-fisted and
the "you-get-what-you-deserve" folks who
flunked out of social psych at West Georgia
College.
Lord oh mighty, with all the talk of
constitutional amendments and other non-
issues that make for neat sound bites,
when are we ever gonna start engaging in
the real battle with congressional arch-
conservatives like Armey and his Freud-
ian slips, who have their crosshairs trans-
fixed on every piece of discretionary fund-
ing that happens to have the word "social"
in it.
Liberal = communist, anti-capitalist
demons, decadent, long-hairs responsible
for all societal decline and taxes since
marijuana and bad music made it to the
surburbs. Surburbs = well, let's just say
they're not stacked with diehard liberal
Democrats who walk around with
Stevenson/Kefauver buttons on their per-
sonage.
Here's the Contract's logic: Affirma-
tive action - screw it. Sign an executive
order, be done with it (Phil Gramm's idea).
Illegal immigrants - ship 'em out, 4eny
'em aid, treat 'em like foreigners. Legal
immigrants - strangers in a strange land.
Deadbeat dads - kill 'em. The environ-
ment is doing just fine; regulations, fed-
eral mandates to protect the public health
- not necessary, the Sierra Club and
Ducks Unlimited will take of all that bizz.
Tort reform - lawyers suck, dude. (But ya
gotta love F. Lee Bailey.) The 4th Amend-
ment - just ain't fashionable anymore.
Hail capital gains tax cuts and more mullah
for Wall Street and the rich at heart.
Folks, this is the gist of the Contract, the
GOP's pact with the devil to increase
defense spending and cut taxes at the ex-
pense of the vulnerable and the economi-
cally disadvantaged. Even the middle class
largely get stiffed - rather than line the
pockets of the wealthy and the corporate
exec, budgetary savings could be used to
more responsibly cut the deficit or lessen
the burden on the saddled middle class
themselves. But the real appeal of the Con-
tract is aesthetic. Check out these creative,
eye-catching legislative titles:
The Personal Responsibility Act
The Taking Back Our Street Act
The Constitutional Destruction Act
The Common Sense Legal Reforms
Act
The American Dream Restoration
Act
The Police in Good Faith Warrant
Act
The Bubba Is God, We Own the
South Act
The Blue Suit and Silver-Haired Act
The Spotted Owl Is Robbing Decent,
Hard-Working Men of Their Jobs Act
The Mike Christie for U.N. Secretary
General Resolution of Support (Act)
The "I hope this is not a re-align-
ment" Act, introduced by a young Daily
staffer that abhors Rush, convulses at the
sight of Noot and hopes that he doesn't get
sued by the RNC.
10-4.
JIM LA sI
'THF,:cLYMPIC. CAKS
.F /"lLTt.- CVi ! c) RAL
f E
................ .................. .
SHARP AS TOAST
Take this cash and ...
Yale correct in rejecting endowment
' I t tf S r
IELtI L'Nt)ER THE
6RE AT'STA rE,
C-1 C
Yale University officials wisely resisted
the temptation of $20 million this week
when they returned an endowment earmarked
for a program on Western Civilization. It was
a triumph of principles over property, a scru-
pulous move that denies rich alumni undue
influence over university policies.
Texas philanthropist Lee M. Bass do-
nated the money to Yale in 1991 to set up the
new Western Civilization curriculum. That
alone raised few eyebrows. But Bass later
stipulated that he approve the choice of pro-
fessors for the program - a dangerous in-
fringement on the university administration's
right to choose its own professors.
Strapped for cash in an era of dwindling
federal funding, U.S. universities are turning
to more creative means of raising money.
Alumni fund-raising has become a major
component of a university's mission, all but
necessary to survive. With the increased re-
liance on alumni dollars, universities are
tempted to take money even with big strings
attached. Yale, thankfully, was an exception.
The University of Michigan last summer
initiated a thorough review of its endow-
ments policy, prompted by charges of mis-
spending. In that instance, the University
was accused of spending donations to the
Communication Department in a manner in-
consistent with the donor's wishes. In re-
viewing the guidelines governing endow-
ments, the University has carefully balanced
the wishes of alumni and other donors with
the need to uphold its academic indepen-
dence. Yale's dilemma would not have hap-
pened here: The University strictly prohibits
donations that compromise the institution's
academic freedom. Like all policies, the
University's guidelines are open to interpre-
tation -leaving much discretion in the hands
of Fleming Building officials. They must
exercise caution in approving and spending
the endowment to adhere to the wishes of the
donor without bending to unfair conditions.
Would-be Yale donor Bass expressed
concerns that the university has established a
committee to spend his donation with little
regard to his wishes. If Bass' assertions are
true, Yale is far from blameless in the contro-
versy surrounding the endowment.
Donors can reasonably expect their en-
dowments to be directed toward the causes
they support. Donations encourage individual
units of universities to excel-- their achieve-
ment is rewarded with alumni cash. But when
a donor places unreasonable demands upon
an institution - as Bass did to Yale - the
school is perfectly justified in turning down
the donation.
Unfortunately, this principled position has
its drawbacks. Robert Eskridge, a 1951 gradu-
ate, has indicated that he may redirect a
planned $500,000 endowment to Yale if the
university does not spend it exactly as he
wishes. Eskridge is certainly entitled to do-
nate money as he sees fit, but Yale should not
be bullied by deep-pocketed alumni who
wield their influence as freely as they flash
their pocketbooks.
i
LETTERS
Bad grammar
mars letter
To the Daily:
There are often letters in the
Daily with which I disagree, and
there are still more that ad-
equately voice my objections to
the previous one. As a result,
though I am often tempted to
respond to some, I never do.
Rather, I rely upon the con-
sciences of others to urge them
to perform what is perhaps my
own duty. Rarely, however, do
the responses address certain
areas which are of concern to
me. One of these areas is gram-
matical accuracy and style.
Michael McCoy's letter in
the March 3 issue of the Daily
("Misinformed letter maligns
homosexuals") presents some
examples of just these sorts of
deficiencies. The first thing one
notices is that McCoy is a gradu-
ate of the University. Keep that
in mind. In the first sentence, he
says, "I was reading the ... Daily,
as was my wont." Is it no longer
his habit to do so? In two days,
has he changed his custom?
Close attention to verb tense
would clarify this sentence.
The second paragraph be-
gins, "Upon reflection, my first
inclination was ..." Presumably,
reflection serves to get one be-
vond one's first inclination.
_.......
_.
_.....
.....
__.
_..
,:
:"::{.
.............
longer seeing students kissing.
A simple "I saw" would have
been more precise.
At this point readers are no
doubt groaning and rolling their
eyes at this anal analysis, but it
is important. Students in col-'
lege should learn how to write.
The written word is not con-
vincing if it is not written cor-
rectly. In studying Latin and
Greek as well as English, I have
found that precision in language
is the foundation of every good
argument. Careless writing is
dismissed as representing care-
less thinking, whether or not it
actually does.
Stylistic problems are also
present in the letter. Exactly in
the middle of his letter, McCoy
writes, "I will sum up with a few
final thoughts." By so doing, he
informs his audience that the
important part of his work is
now done, and a summary and
conclusion are all that remain.
There is no better way to lose
one's audience, in writing or
speaking, than by dishonestly
promising a conclusion.
McCoy spends a significant
amount of time informing read-
ers that one does not technically
die of AIDS or HIV. I am sure
that both John Yob and 95 per-
cent of the other readers (who
have not been "living under
granite for the last five years")
judgements about the validity
of these arguments or the state
of Michael McCoy's intellect.
Rather, I wish only to show how
important technically and gram-
matically sound writing can be,
especially in presenting an ar-
gument.
Jonathan Wilson
LSA senior
DPS actions
against Burke
unreasonable
To the Daily:
I must be missing something
in the story about DPS confis-
cating Stoney Burke's driver's
license for profanity on the Diag,
because from what I understand
from the March 14 issue of the
Daily, a whole lot of things don't
make a shred of sense.
Let me get this straight -
Stoney was arrested for saying
"fuck" on the Diag? I'm per-
plexed. Is DPS planning to walk
around now and arrest every
student who says "fuck" on cam-
pus property? Or, with the new
code amendments, are we pro-
hibited from uttering profane
words at all, anywhere? Are our
e-mail messages being moni-
tored? God forbid we might use
a profane word in a casual ex-
change with a close friend. What
NOTABLE QUOTABLE
"This Is not an
information
superhighway. It
Is an unsurfaced
secondary road
with a hell of a
lot of stop
signs."
- Engineering sopho-
more Nate Hansen,
after unsuccessfully
trying to create a
home page
ears might be scathed by such
language and we will no longer
make suitable wives? And as to
children - are they going to
start policing elementary
schools and network television
and movies, because children
are far from free from such lan-
guage. Stony is hardly the
unique corrupting agent of the
world. And what happens if a
woman or child uses forbidden
language on the Diag?
Additionally, what right does
DPS have to confiscate Stoney's
valid state-issued driver's li-
cense, regardless of what he
does? He doesn't seem to have
violated any traffic laws, he
doesn't seem to pose a vehicu-
lar threat to anyone by virtue of
saying the word "fuck," and I
don't think DPS has any author-
ity to take someone's license
away under any circumstances.
I think that the most DPS can do
is issue a citation under the aus-
pices of the University. I think
so, anyway, but what do I know?
I'm just a womian who cusses
sometimes. Anyway, I've
driven with Stoney before and
he's a damn fine cab driver.
Taking away his license is a
disservice to anyone who needs
a lift.
Finally, I am confused about
DPS' statement that they might
cite him for trespassing. TRES-
m ecmm ,?n..,H. r n:- of
01
.
R
Vice President for Student Affairs Maureen A. Hartford
Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs
6015 Fleming Administration Building
764-5132
Maureen.Hartford@um.cc.umich.edu
0