4 -The Michigan Daily - Thursday, January 11, 1996 abe £irbguu & iI 420 Maynard Ann Arbor, MI Street 48109 Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan MICHAEL ROSENBERG Editor in Chief JULIE BECKER JAMES M. NASH Editorial Page Editors JUDITH KAFT E FINE PRINT Mother-daughter bondbng in theface of a careerlessfuture II 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. Athletic Dept. proposal needs more details G ov. John Engler says all the regents care about is getting free football tickets. Apparently, they care about football coaches' buyouts as well. The Athletic Department's decision to pay former Michigan coach Gary Moeller $386,026 to leave the University, coupled with a controversial contract between the University and Nike, has spurred the Board of:Regents to restructure the way the depart- ment is run. The exact changes are still unclear, and have yet to be approved by the regents. But a prnposal already is on the table. It would first reduce the Board in Control of Intercolle- gite Athletics, which is responsible for ap- proving the department's budgets and goals, to-an advisory role. This is clearly a step forward. In recent years the Board in Control has not exercised much restraint - it appar- ently didn't occur to board members that the Nuke deal might cause concern or that paying almost half a million dollars to an employee for being fired might not be within their jurisdiction. Second, the proposed changes would turn over the responsibilities ofthe Board in Con- trol to the Board of Regents - a move fraught with potential complications. The regents obviously don't have the time to approve every single Athletic Department contract, and involving them in every decision would be a logistical nightmare. As a result, the regents have to allow Athletic Director Joe Roberson to make a number of decisions on his own, without the regents' approval. The question is, where do they draw they line? Does Roberson have free reign unless he deems a matter worthy of the regents' consideration? Or does everything need to be approved by the regents until reasonable guidelines are set? The regents have yet to answer these questions; in essence, they are planning to rewrite the department's bylaws to support a theory of management. Such details must be worked out before a final plan is approved. Other University de- partments have a limited degree of autonomy, with only major decisions going to the re- gents. What is important for now is that the regents have recognized the problem: Much of the world sees the University through the Athletic Department, andthat is not the bright- est view. The regents should be commended for addressing an issue of such vital impor- tance to the image of the University. Most significantly, the regents have sent a message to the athletic director. Roberson, who is largely at fault for the Moeller fiasco, now knows where he stands. He has de- fended his decisions in the Moeller and Nike situations. The wisdom of those decisions aside, it is indefensible that the regents were not even notified of either deal before it was done. Roberson can no longer justify all his decisions based on the Board in Control's approval. The regents have shown they ques- tion his judgment and want to hold him directly accountable for the department's actions. The Athletic Department has operated under its own umbrella for years, and the University is getting soaked. If the proper restructuring takes place, that will no longer happen. Who was it, exactly, who said that you can never go home again? My dictio- nary offers several definitions for the word "home" - the place where a person (or family) lives; a place where one likes to be; the natural environment of an animal. I just spent a month (yes, a full month) at what I refer to as home, although I'm not sure it fulfills any of these definitions - I don't live there, I'm not sure it's where I like to be, and although I may have spent many years there, it hardly appears to be my natu- ral environment. Actually, I'd have to say that for me home is more than a place; as I re- learned over vacation, home is an experi- ence. Of course, going home always involves the pains connected with being part of a quasi-typical dysfunctional family: We fought over what the family movie should be, took separate cars because no one could stand the way everyone else drives, brought up stories from 15 years ago in attempts to win arguments ("This is just like the time you ate all my glue for school!") and made fun of each other's haircuts. And that was just my first day back. (Picture us on Christ- mas Eve, arguing in a Chinese restaurant over the merits and weaknesses of the film "Nixon" while hurriedly stuffing our faces to make sure we got our fair share before it was gone). But this year, as a college senior, unsure of what the future will bring, going home involved some added perks. First of all, understanding that this was the last time I'd be home as a dependent (at least officially) I took it upon myself to visit every doctor I could while still covered by my parents' insurance. I am proud to say that I will enter the real world in May with very clean teeth and a year's supply of contact lenses. Also, not knowing when her next oppor- tunity to feed me would be, my mother felt more pressure than usual to prepare every kind of food I would possibly like. She kept approaching me with recipe books, asking me to choose between three different kinds of chicken dishes, which appeared identical on first and second glances, but with in- depth probing proved to call for different amounts of paprika and/or garlic. I tried explaining to her that after spending my last week in Ann Arbor feeding off pots of boiled rice and my housemates' leftover pizza, any- thing she made was sure to taste delicious, but that actually ended up offending my mother. Actually, mother-smother was something of a problem over break. It's a phenomenon that strikes often, I have noticed, although my unofficial research shows that it is far more prominent during extended vacations than weekends or full summers. It involves an overzealous mother wanting to spend too much time with her somewhat reluctant, but guilt-ridden, progeny. The results are al- ways disastrous. My mother actually took time off work to be with me, which of course made me feel all the more guilty when I'd spend the days with friends. But then, when she started waking me up early in the morning to try and make plans with me before anyone else, I stopped feeling quite so bad. We did plan some mother-daughter out- ings, such as going to lunch together, or visiting the modern art museum. But these prearranged allotments of quality time never seemed to quite work out; at one point I found myself angrily whispering that if she didn't know why an office chair hung up- side-down from the ceiling was considered art, there was certainly nothing I could do to help her. Yet when it came to the BIG senior question, "What are you planning to do after you graduate?", I found I actually preferred the company of my parents to that of my friends. My parents, afraid that I was too directed in life for too long, are actually thrilled that I don't know what I want to do with my life. Of course this doesn't stop them from thinking that I will be gainfully employed after I graduate: The fact that I have made no effort to find ajob and have no plans to do so does not seem to affect their belief. My friends, on the other hand, approached the topic over vacation full force, and seemed a little disappointed in my reluctance to discuss the future. Apparently I am the only one of my friends - male or female - who4 does not own an interview suit. When I explained tothem that as a columnist I really don't conduct many interviews, they were not amused. They wonder what has hap- pened to me at this "liberal school." They hope I don't mix up my odd political views with reality. All in all, though, I have to say that unpleasant as some of those moments were, I was definitely, most certainly home. The question is, after writing this column, can I ever go home again? - Judith Kafka can be reached over e-mail atjkafka@umich.edu ki i MATT WIMSATT Mooi's Du.1flV LANE'Djm.a1 Murky waters Clintons should disclose Whitewater details { , . "' , .,_ t " +t.- . \ --__ -. NOTABLE QUOTABLE 'For the first time In my life I felt like a prisoner.' 4 - Jim Vanstone, a Montreal traveler who got stuck in New Jersey for two days due to the weather al ' ... 1 .. ' ,, , "r ,\ 74 ..-O- Wca-) A commentator on the Public Broadcast- ing System recently remarked that Whitewater is "a cover-up without a crime." The description seems particularly apt in light of recent developments, including the White House's release of documents last weekthat presidential aides hadclaimed were lost. This was another example of the White House's inept handling of the Whitewater affair. The president and his wife repeatedly have denied wrongdoing, but their behavior seems to indicate otherwise, casting a shadow of suspicion over the entire Clinton adminis- tration. The president, for his own sake, should finally come clean and turn over every rel- evant piece of information. Whitewater has all the makings of a grand political scandal: a president who behaves as if he were hiding something, congressional committees and special prosecutors who are investigating and a press corps relentlessly covering the sordid affair. But after nearly four years in the public, one important ingre- dient is still missing: There is no evidence of criminal activity on the Clintons' part. The term "Whitewater" has come to rep- resent the strange relationship between the Clintons and their friend, James McDougal. The Clintons and McDougal bought land for an investment in the late 1970s. Later, when McDougal's savings and loan went bank- rupt, Hillary Rodham Clinton helped him with some legal matters. And this is where a Senate committee now focuses its spotlight. Last week, the White House released cop- ies of documents that seem to contradict a statement Mrs. Clinton made about the amount of work she did for the failing say- How To CONTACT THEM ings and loan. She said her role was minimal, but the documents indicate more extensive involvement. Furthermore, in an unrelated event, the documents were released just one day after the White House disclosed a memo that contradicted another of Mrs. Clinton's statements - this time about her role in the firing of White House Travel Office employ- ees. And the list goes on. Behind the mind-numbing details, a larger, more troubling theme emerges: The erosion of the president's credibility. Every time the White House makes a statement about Whitewater, every time an aide testifies, one wonders if the truth is coming out. This has frustrated Clinton's supporters and encour- aged his enemies. Clinton himself seems to be the main reason Whitewater persists. Furthermore, the whole event is politi- cally damaging to the president, and may haunt him in November. While most voters may not understand all the technical details of the Whitewater affair, they are getting the sense that the Clinton administration is lying to Congress and to the public. The "slick Willie" label that stuck to Clinton in 1992 may give way to an even more dishonorable moniker by the next election. It is in Clinton's interest to release all information to the Senate special committee and the press. The congressional committees and special prosecutors may never be able to indict the president or his wife for criminal activities, but these investigations - some dating back to the last presidential election - are undermining his credibility. In the end, that may be what drowns the Clintons in the messy affair called Whitewater. Press CLIPPINGS NCAA restructuring is really about dollars When our forebears at the Constitutional Convention laid the groundwork for the federal government, two ideas emerged: One proposed a structure based on equal representation for all states, while another sought to shift the balance of powerto those states with the largest popula- tions. Both ideas had their merits, and both, of course, are present in the current system as the two houses of Congress. Hope for a similar, modern- day compromise went out the window this week at the annual National Collegiate Athletics Association meetings in Dallas, where delegates voted over- whelmingly to put power in the hands of big-money Division I football and basketball powers. Under the plan, an omnipotent committee of 16 college presi- This editorial ran in The Min- nesota Daily yesterday. dents - 12 from Division I schools - will make budget and policy decisions for all three NCAA divisions. The plan may make sense on the surface since, after all, the cash- and player- rich schools must be doing some- thing right. But the worry here is that big schools may forget the days long ago when they, too, were small. Granted, presidents of smaller schools have been promised in- creased funding down the road. But with the NCAA's restruc- turing, those needs - and the needs of the athletes themselves - could be neglected. What interest, for example, does a giant like Ohio State Uni- versity have in the success or failure of a relatively tiny school like Mankato State University? They'll never meet on the field of play, their athletic departments are worlds apart financially, and "making ends meet" has totally different meanings. Class distinc- tions are one thing; David and Goliath are another. Southern University athletics director Marino Casem, and other opponents of the plan, have good reason to worry. In an interview with the Baton Rouge, La., Capi- tal City Press, Casem said, "(The restructuring is) going to take those of us who are not in the mainstream further away from the core of the NCAA. They say they're giving us a voice, but all those that have want more." Football fans - in college administrations and the general public alike - may see this ac- tion as a fresh opportunity for another look at some sort of foot- ball playoff system. For that reason alone, this de- cision will likely meet with wide- spread support. Furthermore, ef- ficiency will reportedly improve within the cluttered machinations of the NCAA. But the true mea- sure of this plan should be what- ever future action is taken on issues like appropriate academic standards, possible payment of athletes (or at least adequate scholarship amounts) and the amount of attention - and money - paid to schools in D* visions II and III. Legendary UCLA basketball coach John Wooden spoke Mon- day at a press conference before he was honored by the NCAA with the prestigious Theodore Roosevelt Award. "No sport is minor," he said. "Some are in- come-producing." If they don't bring in a load of money to school, "it doesn't mean they'. less important." The NCAA's new executive committee would be wise to heed Wooden's com- ments. For an organization that supposedly hails the unique im- portance of amateur athletics, the NCAA seems too attracted to the aura of the almighty dollar. busting has indeed "earned him a special place in the hearts of the city's residents," as written in the commencement program. The attack on the 2,600 workers hurts their families and is a threat to the community. Contrary to what the administration believes, we as graduates of the Class of 1995 will remember Neal Shine as t antithesis of our dedication W social and economic justice and community service. Friends and family in the audience joined in peaceful protest, and 12 were ar- rested. Some may not have un- derstood why we interrupted the ceremony. However, our convic- LETTERS 'U' honored publisher wrongfully To the Daily: We participated in the action at commencement protesting Neal Shine's receipt of an honorary degree. This was a ceremony to honor us as graduates. Instead, the University dishonored us with its decision to honor Shine, pub- lisher of the scab Detroit Free Press. A University spokesper- son told The Ann Arbor News that the administration did not implicitly siding with the papers' management. The University held Shine up as an example of what graduates should strive to be. We feel that Shine is an appalling choice for a role model. In 1989, Shine was brought out of retirement to ex- ecute the Joint Operating Agree- ment that was signed to help the two papers regain profitability. At this time, the unions involved agreed to painful concessions in wages and job security. The news- paper companies guaranteed that once profits returned, so would the decent wages and workplace standards that the emnolovees had proposed by management this past summer demanded further job cuts, wage cuts and outsourcing of work to non-union laborers. The six unions repre- senting the 2,600 newspaper workers decided to strike on July 13 after management refused to bargain in good faith. In fact, the regional National Labor Rela- tions Board ruled that management's negotiation tactics qualified as an unfair labor prac- tice. Since the beginning of the strike, management has made it clear that its primary goal is to break the unions, thus attacking the right of workers to organize Sen. Carl Levin (D) 459 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Sen. Spencer Abraham (R) B40 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 ('0'9\ 9 A-AP/Y i