4- The Michigan Daily - Tuesday, February 25, 1997
~ie iri~grn Batifg
420 Maynard Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48109 JOSH WHITE
Editor in Chief
Edited and managed by ERIN MARSH
students at the Editorial Page Editor
University of Michigan
Unless otherwise noted, unsigned editorials reflect the opinion of the 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
Costly lessons
Regents' search bills grow with every report
"NOTABLE QUOTABLE,
'I think the University rips us off anyway. I don't
think room and board should be what it Is now.
I don't think they should be raising it at all. '
- LSA first-year student Jessica Adams
YUKI KuNIYUKI GROUND ZERO
L Att k N 6 DS
6~
0 ,
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Selective memory served the University
Board of Regents poorly in the recent
presidential search - and cost the
University a large sum of money. On top of
the $500,000-plus bill for the search
process itself, recently released figures
show that the board spent an additional
$136,309.32 for legal counseling concern-
ing the state's Open Meetings Act.
Nonetheless, the regents failed to comply
with the spirit of openness implied in the
act - needlessly costing the University
thousands of dollars.
During the search process for former
University President James Duderstadt, the
regents held private, sub-quorum meetings
to interview and evaluate candidates - vio-
lating OMA's dictum. The Ann Arbor News
and the Detroit Free Press sued the regents.
In September 1993, the state Supreme
Court ruled that the board violated OMA
during Duderstadt's selection.
As early as April 1995 - five months
before Duderstadt's resignation - the
regents sought legal advice to "see what this
act said and didn't say," Regent Shirley
McFee said (R-Battle Creek). Instead of
submitting to the court's decision, the
regents looked for loopholes through which
they could further obfuscate future presi-
dential selections.
Last January, the regents hired private
consultant Malcolm MacKay to aid the
search process. Naive to the University's
unique situation, MacKay stressed privacy
as an integral part of the search process.
Under this guise, the Presidential Search
Advisory Committee held closed meetings
to narrow the list of candidates - the same
action that brought the regents to court
eight years earlier.
After PSAC announced its top five can-
didates last year, the newspapers sued
again. PSAC nearly scrapped months of
work and thousands of dollars due to its
lack of public access. The regents' attempt
to evade OMA blew up in their faces -
nearly forcing them back to square one.
New University President Lee
Bollinger's actions will affect all aspects of
the University community - his selection
was too important to hold behind closed
doors. The regents stressed that candidates'
confidentiality must ensured to prevent
threatening their present positions. If a can-
didate cannot stand up to public scrutiny,
they will not be a strong leader and should-
n't be considered for the enormous job of
University president.
McFee stated, "We had decided very
early on, if and when we would need to do
another search, we would do it right." Either
the regents were deaf to any information
that threatened their privacy or they conve-
niently forgot OMA counseling advice
when it was time to select another president.
Despite their efforts to maneuver around
the public interest, lawsuits once again
forced the regents to hire costly litigators.
While Bollinger is an excellent product
of the search process, the regents wasted
money on valueless advice - their stubborn
OMA violations threatened to nullify
PSAC's work. Instead of frittering away
funds on advice they had no intention of tak-
ing, the regents should have used the money
to improve the University's educational
environment. The regents wrongfully put
concerns of privacy ahead of students' edu-
cation and the public's right to information.
Forced out
Military policy must not affect civilian jobs
I t appears that the "don't ask, don't tell"
policy regarding gays and lesbians in the
military has changed. The new policy is
"don't be gay or lesbian and there won't be
a problem.'
In September 1995, John Hoffman con-
fidentially told his supervisor and longtime
friend at the Air Reserve station in Willow
Grove, Pa., that he is gay. In April 1996, the
U.S. Air Force stripped Hoffman of his
weekend military pay and his Reserve uni-
form and told him that, after an investiga-
tion, he would be discharged from the
Reserves. Double jeopardy stuck hard as
Hoffman lost his full-time civilian job as a
mechanic on the same base.
Supposedly, the "don't ask, don't tell"
policy warranted the Air Force's actions.
The policy has once again proven to be an
ineffective means of addressing the institu-
tional biases of the U.S. military. President
Clinton's three-year-old cop-out policy
must change. It is ineffective and does not
address the homophobia and unfounded
biases that plague the armed forces. Witch-
hunts for gays and lesbians in the military
continue with the same fervor as before.
Commanders still conduct or condone ille-
gal searches and seizures of property
belonging to soldiers suspected of being
gay. Military servicepersons still feel
threatened for being - or even suspected
of being - gay or lesbian. Moreover, mili-
tary officials still ask servicepersons ques-
tions to implicate their sexual preference -
even though they may be sheathed under
doublespeak and semantics.
Even if the military did have a legally
' ..I L . - ..+ -.,rn n . n ASr T ^r*" v
"crime:" having the same employer in both
his military and civilian jobs.
Hoffman is currently suing to regain his
civilian job. He believes that the U.S. Air
Force discriminated against him and violat-
ed his civil rights. The case will be a test of
how the U.S. Department of Defense can
treat civilian employees who reveal their
sexual orientation. The Pentagon currently
has no policy prohibiting discrimination
against civilian employees because of their
sexual orientation. This situation must be
immediately rectified - the Pentagon can-
not be allowed to wallow in the false dogma
of a previous generation. The Pentagon
must formulate a policy to prevent discrim-
ination against employees on the basis of
their sexual orientation. If it fails to imple-
ment a just solution, Clinton, as the com-
mander-in-chief of the armed forces,
should directly address the issue through an
executive order.
Sexual orientation neither affects citi-
zens' ability to serve their country as
reservists, nor their ability to maintain C-
130 transport planes. The Air Force never
questioned Hoffman's work or quality of
service before he admitted his sexual orien-
tation.
Hoffman is a Persian Gulf War veteran;.
he has demonstrated the kind of dedication
and courage that should characterize every
U.S. military serviceperson. Hoffman's
record of service is a testament to the falla-
cy of restricting gays from military service.
The military's action against Hoffman as a
reservist and a civilian is unconstitutional
and abominable. One divulged secret has
MSA should
not foot
Rose's bills
TO THE DAILY:
Fiona Rose's recent
Franklin Quest Planner pur-
chase has started to get me to
think. I can see how an effec-
tive time-management system
is important for someone in
Rose's position, so I can see
why MSA funds paid for it.
But why stop there? Rose,
to be an effective president,
must eat. So let's have MSA
foot the bill for her food.
What about sleep? She's
gotta be well-rested to per-
form her important duties, so
MSA should get her a nice
apartment, with, of course,
cable (gotta watch C-SPAN).
She shouldn't be occupied
with tuition costs, so the stu-
dent body should pay for her
tuition. Heck, she's got a stu-
dent council to run, so she
can't be bogged down by
exams and papers. Let's
appoint a committee to do
her school work.
MSA is simply student
council. We need it, but we
also need it to keep every-
thing in perspective. C'mon
- partisan politics in student
council? Jeepers.
MSA: Do your job, fol-
low the rules, don't buy
expensive personal planners
when Borders is clearing
their 1997 calendars out for a
buck each and keep your
heads. One person can make
a difference, but not because
of a fancy MSA title or job.
And Ms. Rose, I expect a
thank you card for the plan-
ner.
JIMMY BOYNTON
LSA JUNIOR
'U' College
Republicans
stand strong
TO THE DAILY:
Many students don't think
so right now, but the
University College
Republicans are one of the
strongest groups on campus.
Almost all of what we did
and are still planningon
doing is because of one man,
Nick Kirk.
This past year we worked
our hearts out going to
Dole/Kemp rallys working at
the Livonia mail center and
working phone banks trying
to get the GOP message out
to voters.
Hee in the community,
we are currently in the mid-
dle of our community service
project for Habitat for
Humanity, a non-profit orga-
nization that builds free
Even the Daily's own Dean
Bakopoulos, who doesn't
remotely believe in
Republican ideals, said that
we are one of the hardest
working groups on campus.
I would also like remind
the campus that Nick was
impeached by a 3-1 vote by
the CR executive board and
not by the general members.
Had the vote come down to
the general members, Nick
Kirk would still have the title,
"President, University
College Republicans."
Second, I would like
respond to what MSA Rep.
Andy Schor stated in his let-
ter to the editor ("Kirk's
fraud reflects badly on 'U'
CRs," 2/21/97) saying how
Elias Xenos, CR vice presi-
dent, is the model leader for
Republicans on campus. If
Xenos ran the CR as presi-
dent like he did as vice-presi-
dent, we would all be picking
our noses every week won-
dering what to do! Xenos
rarely (I mean like one event)
has attended any function we
do except for our regular
Wednesday meetings.
Also, if Elias is such a
good leader of the CRs, then
why did he drop out of the
presidential election? Schor,
I'd get your eyes examined
because obviously you don't
know your friend Elias as
well as you think.
I am not condoning the
press incident, but exploiting
the positive events of Nick
Kirk's year as president of
the CRs.
As the likely candidate to
win the vice presidency of
the College Republicans this
March, acan only hope that
Mark Potts and the new lead-
ership can be as involved as
Nick Kirk was as our past
president. I also hope stu-
dents on campus realize that
Nick isn't what everyone
makes him out to be.
ADAM SILVER
ENGINEERING
FIRST-YEAR STUDENT
Proud to
identify with
campaign
TO THE DAILY:
As the usual cacophony
of students were talking,
backpacks unzipping and
chairs squeaking before the
beginning of class, I was
thumbing through the Daily
and came across David
Taub's letter requesting that
Jews on this campus should
reject the UJA Half Shekel
campaign ("Campus Jews
should reject Half-Shekel
campaign," 2/20/97). I was
very much surprised by this
sort of response. Now, I may
working on the campaign. It
was not that they approached
me, nor was I accosted with
the usual flyers and people
asking for a donation to one
thing or another like they do
in the Diag. I simply was
curious. The message I heard
was not one expressing a
desire for segregation. In
fact, I was told that non-Jews
alike have been and are wel-
corned, to participate in the
campaign. They were not
seeking to convert anyone to
Judaism. They just wanted a
small gesture on my part (and
hopefully, many others) to
take a stand for a humanitari-
an cause - the United
Jewish Appeal.
The Half-Shekel button
that I have been wearing for
the last two days has made
me feel part of something.
Yet that something is just
doing something good. If I
am sticking out like a sore
thumb as a Jew, and I am
helping other people, then
perhaps this is the best way
to stick out. For some reason
I would feel more sore to not
stick out in this case. I hope
that fellow Jewish students
and non-Jewish students on
this campus realize that the
Half-Shekel campaign is not
about badges for segregation
or conversion. Rather, it is
simply a quiet gesture of
humanitarianism in the very
loud cacophony of our every
day lives.
HAVI WOLFSON
LSA JUNIOR
Kirk incident
re presents
GOP demise
To THE DAILY:
A few weeks ago, I and
some fellow College
Democrats, not just from the
University of Michigan, but
campuses across the state,
attended our state party's
convention. We, unlike,
Nicholas Kirk, did not have
to forge any documents or
impersonate anyone to be let
in. My friends and I met and
spoke with a number of elect-
ed officials, state party lead-
ers and candidates for gover-
nor, all without pretending to
be members of the press.
Although Kirk's actions
do show a personal lack of
ethics, I believe the larger
issue is the structure of the
Republican Party. The
Democrats have always been
inclusive, open to everyone
who wanting to join, while
Republicans have been the
party of the elite, rejecting
those who aren't of the same
social or economic status.
I applaud the impeach-
ment of Kirk and hope the
ne~w College Republican
An open letter
to Gov. Engler
D ear Governor Engler,
Clearly, you consider welfare
reform to be a critical issue. Indeed,
your own welfare reform initiative has
been praised by both Republicans and
Democrats as a constructive measure;
welfare rolls are shrinking, the poverty
rate is falling and Michigan's economy
is booming. So I begin this letter with
the premise that you are very much
interested in mov-
ing people from
welfare to work. If
this entails penal-
izing those who
refuse to look for
work, I can live
with that. I do
believe, however,
that those who are
actively searching
for work should SAMUEL
not be left in the GOODSTEIN
lurch if their bene- GRAND
fits expire under ILLUSION
the new federal
welfare law. I am not implying that the
government should provide open-
ended support for everybody; rather, I
am saying that a person who is really
trying to find work should not be left
without either monetary assistance or
a government-sponsored job or job-
training. As you know, many people
(even in times of economic prosperity)
cannot find work; either they are not
trained for the high-skill jobs that are
available, or they face very stiff com-
petition for low-skill jobs.
I write this letter with one very spe-
cific policy in mind: Beginning March
1 - under the new federal welfare la
- childless, able-bodied people
between the ages of 18 and 50 will be
eligible to collect food stamps for only
three months in any given three-year
period, no matter how diligently they
are seeking work (if recipients work 20
hours per week, they can continue to
receive food stamps). Roughly one mil-
lion food stamp recipients will, be
impacted by this law; their average
yearly income is only 28 percent of th
poverty-level income ($2,200) and
almost one-third are between the ages
of 40 and 50. Governors are given the
opportunity to seek federal waivers to
exempt economically depressed areas
from this new law; Detroit qualifies for
the federal waiver, and you could easily
acquire it - you have decided not to. I
ask you to reconsider your position; I
ask you to be fair, to support those who
are trying to help themselves and, yes
to have some compassion.
Lest you think this is an argument
born of passion, without important
factual justification behind it, I want to
share three specific factors that make
it absolutely crucial that you change
your position.
No. 1: The congressional intent of
this provision was that once recipients
reached the three-month limit, they
would either find work or would hav
the option to participate in food stamp
workfare programs and continue to
receive food stamps. This fact is clear-
ly demonstrated in the congressional
debate over the provision, when the
sponsor - Rep. John Kasich (R-Ohio)
- said: "So, if you are able-bodied,
you go and you have to work to get
your food stamps. Then of course if
you cannot find a job. then you do
workfare. That is what it is.
Unfortunately, these food-stamp work-
fare programs mentioned by Mr.
Kasich are all but non-existent. Only
10 states have these programs, and the
average enrollment in these states is 52
persons. Michigan, as you know, does
not have such a program. Clearly,
Congress never intended that people
cut off from food stamps would go
without stamps if they were either able
to find work or were willing to partic
ipate in workfare programs.
No. 2: In most poor areas, there are
far fewer low-skill jobs than there are
applicants for these jobs. One study
estimates that for every available fast-
food job in Harlem, there are 15 appli-
cants. Of those who were not hired, 73
percent had not found work one year
later. This problem will only be exacer-
bated by the new welfare law, which
will flood the labor market with low-
income welfare mothers who have to
benefits and are seeking work.
No. 3: The new minimum wage law
gives employers tax credits for hiring
people recently dropped from welfare;
it does not provide a tax credit for peo-
ple who have lost their food stamps.
Therefore, people who have recently
lost food stamps will be at a competi-
tive disadvantage versus other employ-
ment-seekers.
These three reasons make it absolute-
ly imperative that you reconsider your
position not to seek a waiver for Detroit.
But an even more compelling reason is
the fact that three-fourths of food stamp
recipients leave the program after nine
mnth antiic n -wlIi,erne~ '~tt of fnd~