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