4A -The Michigan Daily - Monday, January 29, 1996 Ube rbic guu ilg 420 Maynard Street Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan RONNIE GLASSBERG Editor in Chief ADRIENNE JANNEY ZACHARY M. RAIMI Editorial Page Editors NOTABLE QIOTABLE 'Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people. peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.' - First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. JIM LASERSHRPAs ToAsT ; 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. FROM THE DAilY The next generaion Progress comes not only from protest Rumor has it that a pink Energizer bunny rests on the desk of University Presi- dent James Duderstadt. Maybe he keeps it there as a signal: Don't take the University too seriously. Perhaps it reminds him that the University, like the rabbit with good batter- ies, "just keeps going ... and going." Throughout Jake Baker's expulsion and arraignment for Internet obscenity, the Uni- versity kept going. With each funding cut and tuition increase, campus life ensues. We had to catch our breath when Duderstadt announced his untimely retirement-but the University barely missed a beat. Students have struggled against a non-academic con- duct code for years. Yet with each new imple- mentation, the cube keeps its spin. Each year, the student body somewhat blindly elects a new Michigan Student As- sembly president; this year the administra- tion will pick a new University president from partially hidden chambers. We will watch the Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs stumble through the new Code of Student Conduct. Internet intrica- cies will increase tenfold - our generation will lay the ground rules for cyberspace. The federal government might reach a budget agreement and we will elect a president. Like the cube, the world will spin, no matter how loudly we protest. Inthe '60s, our parents protested, blocked, restructured and revolutionized any cause that crossed their paths. The Fleming Ad- ministration Building, with its bizarre win- dows, was "riot-proofed" with good reason; the FBI had a file on many campus groups, including The Michigan Daily. But we're a different generation - more dispersed, still active and a little confused. We're grappling with apathy and advance- ment technology - not blowing up campus buildings. Student empowerment, however, does not have to come from protest alone. We have quieter methods of protest: participa- tion, petitions and the vote. If storming Fleming works, great. But if we can't charge, we must stand firm. As voters, we must choose our leaders carefully because we entrust them with the decision to compromise or hold fast. If com- promise is the result, it must be a calculated one. However, the.voters' -the students'- interests must never be compromised. For our part, we will keep you, our read- ers, informed. We will hold the ideals up for you to examine, not wavering in our position. For your part, keep right of your own ideals. Students will have more power in solidarity - so stand together. Forty thou- sand of us cannot be ignored. Student concerns are the highest priority of this page. For this reason, we reserve a space for your letters and viewpoints. Tell us when we're wrong and when we're right. Tell us something we don't know. But tell us. - Adrienne Janney, Zachary M. Raimi Editorial Page Editors 'HERE WE t 0--YOUR HONOR, Mi5. PRESLEY- ACKSON HAS ONLY VERY SIMPLE /U)EMWD5 IN TrHIS SDIVoCE- SETTL.MEN1T NAMELY CusToDY OF THE FAMI L Y TI{iER, OS-RICH,, ZE$"A THE FE IS - ;- WE EL IN TH E FRONT YARD AND4 THE MASCARA- LETrERS TO THE EDrrOR Editorial discounts 'U' racism To THE DAILY: The editorial that appeared Jan. 25, "Crying Wolf," concerning the Dental School racism case was appalling but not unusual for the "new Daily." Your editorial viciously attacked the case of the three fired workers in the name of upholding the University's review that found no racist intent on behalf of the employers. Unfortunately, the Daily staff chose to ignore this country's painful past and shameful present of widespread racism which does not exclude the University. For the Daily, the University's decision alone was enough to determine the Dental School workers were lying and willing to go through a lengthy legal process, just for the hell of it. Perhaps the Daily staff is ignorant to the fact that institutions are easily capable of promoting and covering-up racism because they have the resources and people willing to blindly believe them. The editorial mentioned no sort of investigation or even the slightest knowl- edge of the legalities of the case that could have prompted the Daily to attack the workers as they did. The Daily accused the workers of trivializing racism when in fact, the trivializing of racism is exactly what the Daily is promoting. Bad journalism is the easiest factor to point to in this case. The history of racism in this country tells us that it is not easy as 1-2-3 to discount racism possibilities. CARLEAN PONDER LSA SOPHOMORE WHAT'S AFFECTING U' THIS WEEK MONDAY SACUA meeting Regents' Room, Fleming Building 1:30 p.m. TUESDAY Michigan Student Assembly meeting 3909 Michigan Union 7:30 p.m. THE DouBLE X Reconciling a feminist ' label with a student identiy G7j" hat's OK, I'm not a feminist." "T The woman speaking was one of my new hal-mates. It was my first night in college, and my room- mate - who would only have been another stranger - hadn't yet ar- rived. I had wan- deredthe hall until I found an open door andasked if I could join the three ' ' strangers in the cell-like room. At least they were people with whom to order pizza. The second KATE woman in the EPSTEIN room assured the. one man that she wasn't a feminist either. He had just made some comment that insulted women. Four years later, I don't remember what because I knew men could be sexist. But I still remember the compla- cent tone in the woman's voice, ex- cusing his comment. I'd never heard "I'm not a feminist" come from a woman's mouth before. Theoreti- cally, I knew there were women who would say they weren't feminists, but I presumed they were all older than my mother,or lessthan middle class, or intense about some religion that taught inequality, or from some culture completely different from my own. I'm embarrassed, now, to admit to these ageist, classist, racist, preju- diced assumptions. But at the time, I would have been at a loss to imagine what a woman who would say she wasn't a feminist would be like. I would have assumed that such a woman had to be in cir- cumstances so different from mine that I could never understand them. Raised on "Free To Be ... You And Me" and Judy Blume's novels by two parents who considered themselves feminists, I had never questioned my identity as a feminist any more than I had questioned my identity as a fe- male. I continued, that first year, to meet women who seemed as confident they were not feminists as I was that I was one. I tried, to begin with, to be open minded. Maybe it didn't matter if women didn't call themselves femi- nists, if they believed in basic gender equality, which some said they did. They really were feminists, they just didn't know it, I thought. But I couldn't shake my discomfort when women said they weren't feminists. Then a friend pointed out that women who call themselves femi- nists are suggesting they have a life- long commitment to the movement. If feminist is a part of your identity, instead of a political platform with some tenets that you advocate, you won't throw it away because some- thing or someone comes along and asks you to tolerate sexism. My friend had articulated what I was already observing. Like the women I was talking to my first evening at the University, non-femi- nist women tolerated sexism. As soon as men's comfort seemed at stake, they abandoned gender equality. But the notion of equality depends on the presence of both sexes. If you aban- don it as soon as men come on the scene, you never believed in it. I decided it was important to call your- self a feminist. But I began to waver about what the label meant. That first night, sitting in a strange room that looked, under the furmi- ture, exactly like the one where I would live for the next eight months, I had to examine my identification with the frequently amorphous women's movement for the first time. It had become a choice. And now that it was a choice, it was a thing sepa- rable from myself. It was possible to -hardnot to-hold itup to the light and examine it. AndI realized that being a feminist had always been about me. Iwas a feminist because I had respect for myself. I demonstrated for reproduc- tive freedom because, first and fore- most, I wanted control over my own body. I did not tolerate misogyny where I saw it because it directly took from my power. All other women were distantly second to me. But I started examining feminism as I knew it in my heart, and I started listening to feminist thinkers that I met and read here. All women began to run neck-in-neck with me in the journey to feminist goals. Feminism became part and parcel ofseeking the end o~f allkinds of onnression. Be- S S 4' Let there be light Regents must hold open search for president 0* . L ast time the University regents selected a president, they violated the law and betrayed the public's trust by closing the search. In the present search, the regents have promised to comply with the law as they select a successor to James Duderstadt, who will step down in June. But the regents' recent actions- signal otherwise. With the appointment of a private consultant and a search advisory panel, the regents are slink- ing back toward a search process full of secrecy and deceit. Instead, the regents should be straightforward and open about every aspect of the search - anything less is unac- ceptable and possibly illegal. Last Thursday, the regents announced a plan to form a search advisory committee. The 12-person panel will be responsible for compiling a list of candidates for the University's presidency. The panel, which will consist of faculty, staff, students and an alum, will not be allowed to meet with the regents until they release the list in Septem- ber. The committee will work closely with consultant Malcolm MacKay of the private New York-based firm Russell Reynolds As- sociates. The selection process appears ac- ceptable, but there is a catch - the advisory committee will conduct its business behind close doors. The regents' decision to create a commit- tee that will meet in private is disappointing. Joan Lowenstein, a University communica- tion studies lecturer and media law special- ist, captured the essence: "I think it violates the law in spirit, if not in letter." The regents must not use the committee to sidestep the Open Meetings Act-the committee's pres- ence will give the regents the opportunity to do so, while the public is left in the dark. Michigan law allows a government insti- tution to appoint a subcommittee that meets in private as long as it is purely a advisory role. It cannot make decisions or cuts. The regents claim this as the purpose ofthe search nate or rigorously promote certain candi- dates above others. If it does, the committee will be violating state law. Although the committee will have to turn a list of all the possible candidates they considered over to the regents in the fall, students have no way to know what the committee does in private. What if the committee pulls candidates from consideration? What if the committee goes out of its way to push for some candidates and sabotage others? It is impossible to an- swer these questions. The public will never see the whole process -though it is entitled to - as long as any part of the search process is conducted behind closed doors. The vague duties of MacKay are also suspect. The regents said MacKay's job is to search for and inform the committee of can- didates. MacKay will search for candidates and meet with the committee privately. MacKay, therefore, is not accountable to the public, despite his determining role in the search process. MacKay's private freedom gives rise to another possibility: Will he consult covertly with various regents about candidates? While this action would be in violation of the OMA, it is far from far- fetched. During MacKay's public interview with the regents, he admitted his ignorance of the OMA and his unfamiliarity with the Uni- versity. MacKay may follow the law strictly. Once again, the public will never know. Choosing a University president is a dif- ficult task, especially at a large and diverse University. While it is acceptable for the regents to seek help in the process, their actions appear suspicious. The regents could use the advisory panel as a tool to circumvent the OMA, which would undermine the law - and public trust. A shadow of doubt fol- lows the Board of Regents since the last ill- fated search. Allowing a search committee to meet in privatereinforces the board's decep- tive image. If the regents want to rid them- selves of the shadow, they should step out VIUEWPOINr Code panelists left ill-prepared BY BEN NOVICK period is too short and recom- written guidelines, we AND OLGA SAVIC mends amore extensive prepa- determine the truth. I What is a student resolu- ration. For some odd reason, University's legal systen tion panelist? There are 60 of we too feel that 48 hours is termination of-truth ist us, appointed by various col- simplynotenoughtimetopre- on direct and indirecti lege governments. Our job, pare one for the task of pass- mation, or hearsay, as iti according to Resolution Co- ing judgement on a peer. terknown.After oneafte ordinator Mary Lou Anticau, Next, we deliberate to de- of training, the administr is to work with fellow stu- termine if the Code hastbeen feels confident in ourab dents and a faculty adviser to violated. You'll be happy to to differentiate between "gather information relevant know there are no set guide- two categories. Wethank to the allegations of miscon- lines for how we do this. We for their faith in us. How duct, deliberate to determine have learned that courtesy and we do not share it. if the Code (of Student Con- civility are important, and that Finally, and most dis duct) has been violated, and sometimes "tears and laugh- ingly, we are expected to make recommendations (ofre- ter can be heard at these hear- recommendations abou sponsibility and/or sanctions) ings." Beyond that, nothing. sible sanctions to the d to the dean of students." From We have no clue, students. The Officeo now on, we are qualified to Luckily, Mary Lou dent Conflict Resole pass judgement on you, our Antieau will be there at all prides itself on the flex fellow students. How is this times to guide us in this pro- of sanctions. Flexibil possible? Are we trained law- good. An utter lack of g yers? Were we born with an 48 hours is not lines is not good. Sancti innate sense of justice? Un- eog iet is based solely on the w fortunately, no. We have had enough time to and capriciousness of th exactly six hours of training, prepare one for dent panelists. We hop and participated in a mock this means that the pan "arbitration." Now we are the task of pass- will devise fair, educat ready. Now we are set apart jng judgment on a and original sanctions. and above. indeed is the expectatio This, in our minds, is a peer. the OSCR has of us. serious problem. We have a moral issu Let us go through our job cess. This is good, since she is judging and sanctionin assignment point by point. an attorney. This is bad, since fellow students. When t First, gathering information. she is the prosecuting attor- sue was raised at arbit We are given 48 hours notifi- ney. This is also bad because training, we were told th cation of an arbitration which she has the power along with ter going through the pi we have to hear. In that brief the faculty resolution officer of judging an arbitrati time we are expected to evalu- to "determine that a question would have no problem ate a case file, decide on ques- must be modified or disre- sanctioning. If we still1 tions to ask, which potential garded." When questioned on moral problem with thi witnesses we want to hear and this arcane point of fascist le- Chamber mentality, we A ;. must n the m, de- based infor- is bet- rnoon tration 'ilities these k them wever, sturb- make t pos- ean of )f Stu- ution ibility ity is guide- oning whims he stu- e that nelists ational This n that e with ag our his is- ration hat af- rocess on we nwith had a s Star were S« what needs to be proven. An hour before the hearing, we meet our fellow panelists for the first time and decide to- gether how the arbitration will work - in essence, scripting this "arbitration room" drama before it happens. Susan Eklund, associate dean of the Law School, has said this time gal ity, Antieau replied that the situation hardly ever arose. However, the simple fact that this loophole exists is a dan- ger to the rights of all stu- dents. Perhaps Antieau is fair in heractions and judgments, yet we cannot be assured that she will remain the resolution co- ordinator forever. When she leaves, so do the rules and regulations governing these procedures. Relying solely on invited to resign.~ If, we op- posed the Code, we were also invited to resign. We oppose the Code and are utterly ap- palled at the idea of this mock judicial process. Yet we will not resign. We joined this panel be- cause we believe in student rights and want to ensure as fair a process as possible for both complainant and alleged violator. We do not wish to see student panelists hand-picked Novick is an RC senior and Savic is an LSA sophomore. Both students i