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~