4A - The Michigan Daily - Thursday, April 3, 1997

je £tidg Dal3g

420 Maynard Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Edited and managed by
students at the
University of Michigan

JOSH WHITE
Editor in Chief
ERIN MARSH
Editorial Page Editor

"NOTABLE QUOTABLE,,
'President Bollinger has to put his team
into place ... I am willing to help him ... but
eventually he needs to put a new person In this job.'
- University Provost J Bernard Machen, who announced Tuesday
that he will leave his post after his contract expires in August
YuK KUNIYUKI GROU ND ZERO

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.

I
ri
r1
J
J
1
J
j
i
1
j
i
J

FROM THE DAILY
Packing a punch
Royalties continue to plague 'U' students
C oursepacks can expose students to a store and make handouts for their students
diverse curriculum while sidestepping at an affordable price. However, if they give
the need to purchase a plethora of text- the same responsibility to a coursepack
books. However, coursepack prices are shop, they must pay royalties, in addition to
exorbitantly high because businesses must copying costs, and the price may increase
pay royalties to publishers. On Monday, the several hundred percent. The Supreme
Supreme Court missed an opportunity to Court, in perpetrating the contradiction, has
make college expenses more affordable by violated the lawmakers' original intentions
refusing to hear a case, brought by - lawmakers enacted the Fair Use Law for
Michigan Document Services, that would the explicit purpose of making education
have eliminated these royalties. more accessible and encouraging the intel-
The U.S. Fair Use Law states that a fee lectual community's free flow of ideas.
cannot be charged on copyrighted items that In spite of the ruling, students at the
are used for educational purposes. University may soon pay less for their
According to Susan Kornfeild, lawyer for coursepacks. In their successful bid to run
Michigan Document Services, copiers the Michigan Student Assembly, Michael
could produce coursepacks without paying Nagrant and Olga Savic proposed the cre-
publisher's fees until 1991. That year, a New ation of a student coursepack store. The
York federal judge ruled that the Fair Use store would sell both new and used coursep-
Law does not apply to businesses selling acks and, because it would be non-profit,
coursepacks. The ruling lacked foresight. would not fall under the Fair Use Law's aus-
By forcing businesses to pay for the intel- pices. Therefore, the store's student
lectual property rights of photocopied coursepacks would not incur royalties.
material, the judge sought to crack down on Nagrant and Savic should look for
profit margins. His wish went unfulfilled resourceful ways to make the store a reality.
- and students must bear the burden of If it is implemented, students could buy and
additional costs. sell materials efficiently and could save a
Michigan Document Service deserves great deal of money during their time at the
commendation for its efforts to overturn the University.
decision. Three publishers sued MDS in MDS fought valiantly, but the Supreme
1992 for refusing to pay required permis- Court chose to condone royalties and high
sion fees for copying materials. Last year, coursepack costs. In the future, the Court
the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals fol- should decide to hear similar cases. In the
lowed the precedent of the New York case, meantime, universities must look for cre-
ruling that MDS must pay the royalties. On ative means of holding down coursepack
Monday, the Supreme Court effectively shut prices. Nagrant and Savic should take note:
the door on the issue by refusing to hear an The errant Supreme Court ruling heightens
appeal. The high court's decision creates an the urgency and need for a coursepack
appalling paradox. store; they must make its creation a high

VAHkr k

"IANGtE.D to E$

w!r WEAVE-


EH
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

/ I

Professors can go to the nearest copy

priority.

-Qualiing for credit
State Senate must pass tuition tax-credit bill

W hen students think about the
University, three colors often come
to mind: maize, blue and green. High
tuition costs can be prohibitive and could
remove the University from many qualified
students' list of options. A bill under con-
sideration in the Michigan State Legislature
would increase the state's tuition tax credit
- providing students with another means
to ease the financial burden of large tuition
bills.
The new legislation, which passed the
state House this month by a margin of 94-
13, would increase the tuition tax credit
from $250 to $500. The bill would also nul-
lify a previous stipulation that made
University students ineligible for the credit.
The bill now goes to the state Senate for
approval. The Senate should follow the
House's strong bipartisan support for the
bill and address the fact that students' needs
transcend party lines.
With tuition, room and board expenses
and high textbook prices, many students
struggle to keep their checking accounts in
the black. The tuition tax credit could help
students and their parents manage through
the financially tumultuous tax season. An
extra $500 could go a long way to prevent
students from falling further into debt.
The state's present policy of denying tax
credits to University students is unfair and
illogical. Under the policy, students attend-
ing schools that do not keep tuition in line
with inflation - including the University
- are ineligible for the tax credit. Instead
of the standard Consumer Price Index, the
University uses its own system to calculate
annual inflation rates, including items that

culating inflation, the University Board of
Regents consistently raises tuition at a rate
slightly above the CPI inflation rate. The
former policy indirectly penalized students
for the regents' actions and punished them
for attending a university priced above
inflation. The new policy would eliminate
the ill-conceived rule and make the
University a more viable option to students
with limited financial resources.
For the past several years, the University
failed to keep its tuition increases in line
with CPI's standardized rate, hitting stu-
dents disproportionately harder every year.
Regardless of state tuition tax-credit poli-
cies, the regents should moderate tuition
increases to keep a University education
accessible. When making tuition-increase
decisions, the regents should keep in mind
that most students' financial resources
grow at a rate close to inflation.
State Rep. Harold Vorhees (D-
Wyoming) said that his problem with
expanding tax credits is that it does not
solve the underlying problem of the raging
inflation rate. While controlling inflation
rates is a good long-term goal, forcing stu-
dents to wait is impractical. Tax credits are
a good way to provide a temporary fix to
students' problems; their expansion could
open up avenues of opportunity that stu-
dents never had before.
The state should work to break down
financial barriers preventing qualified stu-
dents from taking advantage of opportuni-
ties to attend the University. Expanding
tuition tax credits could go a long way to
making the University an option for stu-
dents that lack extensive financial

Porn is not
to blame for
sexist culture
TO THE DAILY:
Underlying Lara Hamza's
("Social norms to blame for
objectification of women,"
4/2/97) response to my argu-
ments about pornography
("Anti-Playboy letters make
questionable assumptions,"
3/31/97), is a strong assump-
tion: "There is nothing ques-
tionable about the fact that
even today, women are not
taken as seriously as men and
they still don't have the power
men so wrongly abuse - and
this is largely due to the
harmful effects of pornogra-
phy which eroticizes keeping
women subordinate to men."
While few would question
that women are not taken as
seriously as men in today's
society, can we really
attribute sexism in our cul-
ture to pornography? Can we
really say that the power
imbalances and injustices
that exist in our society are
"largely" due to pornogra-
phy? And can we hope, as
implied by Hamza's argu-
ment, that the elimination of
pornography will reduce the
amount of sexism in our cul-
ture?
Sexism is endemic in our
culture, and arises from a
number of places. Some of
these include the wide matrix
of educational structures,
both formal and informal,
that spread folk notions and
myths about the superiority
of men over women. People
are taught, in their day-to-day
experiences, to believe as
"common sense" that women
are not as rational as men,
not as good at science or
logic, that they are "natural-
ly" supposed to be primarily
caregivers for children, and
so on.
With these other beliefs in
place, is it any surprise that
some men react to pornogra-
phy the way they do? No -
but the problem isn't in the
pornography itself, but the
pre-existing ideas people take
to it.
To say that people should
not be allowed to display any-
thing that they are proud of
- be it physical, social or
intellectual - is merely reac-
tionary conservativism. It is
saying, "What I want to flaunt
about myself is better than
what you want to flaunt about
yourself." To say that pornog-
raphy involving women con-
tributes to "the objectification
of all women" is to speak to a
problem that is not inherent
in pornography itself. If you
want to correct the problem,
attack it at its heart - the
educational systems and
widespread cultural beliefs
about the inferiority of

or any other adult publica-
tions; I just feel the need to
address some points in
regards to the arguments
made by so many free think-
ing Daily readers against the
societal melting machine that
is Playboy.
I think that the anti-
Playboy warriors out there
need to help me out on a
question that's been bugging
me: Why should I not be able
to enjoy whatever it is that I
might experience by viewing
a naked woman's body? Why
should I not have the option
to choose if I want to thumb
through a Playboy for its pic-
tures of women, or articles
on health, or saucy political
commentary? Is it because
you are offended by the con-
tent of the magazine? Or
because you feel hurt by the
explicit crimes committed by
Playboy? Does it make you
uncomfortable to know that
men look at the "objects" on
those airbrushed pages of a
men's publication just for
their leisurely arousal? Since
when do any of these public
voicings of concern for the
good of our society stand as
a basis for discontinuation of
any publication? We're not
talking about near-universal
evil or gutwrenching sleaze
like child porn or something.
At this point many are
angrily whispering out the
corner of their mouths,
"We're not saying Playboy
should be banned, we're just
speaking out against the evils
and societal degradation it
promulgates."
To this I say, "Great!" I
agree with half the things
you say. Just come up with a
more stable and less humane
and more constitutional argu-
ment for why Playboy is bad.
PAUL BHASIN
SCHOOL OF MUSIC
'Reactionary'
approach to
music offends
TO THE DAILY:
Looking past the pathetic
specifics James Miller
("Soulless music for a soul-
less generation," 4/1/97)
chooses for his argument
against techno (last time I
checked, fashion, cigarettes
and diet don't affect the way
music sounds when it comes
out of your speakers), Miller's
main beef with techno (and
Britpop) seems to be, "I don't
see anything good about it;
therefore, it's stupid."
As an LSA student, I
applauded Miller's rallying
against a similar attitude
toward a liberal arts educa-
tion in a previous column.
Yet it now seems to me that
this live-and-let-live attitude

Feminism is
more than a
stereotype
To THE DAILY:
Apparently Megan
Schimpf is much more com-
fortable with being a conve-
nient pawn of the conserva-
tive, anti-feminist backlash
than she is with identifying
herself (god forbid!) as a
feminist. In her column
("Feminists lose their
strength by fighting the
wrong battle," 3/31/97)
Schimpf offers a depressingly
uninformed, vague and poor-
ly articulated argument
against a version of feminism
that she barely seems to
understand herself.
Obviously, Schimpf and I
have very different views of
feminism. This is perfectly
acceptable, because even two
self-identified feminists will
have differing views of the
movement. However,,
Schimpf's column only
proves her ability to uncriti-
cally and unquestioningly
accept mainstream media's
traditionally negative stereo-
type of feminism. Oddly
enough, Schimpf herself even
realizes that the mainstream
view of feminism is only a
label that has been attached
to the movement. What she
fails to recognize is that this
label has been created and
propagated by those who will
most benefit from feminism's
failure. As women gain
power in this society (howev-
er tenuous those gains often
are) men in turn are forced to
relinquish some of theirs.
The mainstream political and
cultural establishment, as
well as the conservative right,
have a lot to gain by discred-
iting the feminist movement
and its many accomplish-
ments. Schimpf plays right
into their hands.
Schimpf asserts that real
women (not feminists) are
now "ready to be successful
based on brilliance and cre-
ativity, not simply because
they are women" and that
"the playing field has
changed since the feminist
movement launched in the
'60s." Not only does Schimpf
ignorantly fail to recognize
that the feminist movement is
several hundred years old, but
she completely ignores the
fact that the feminist move-
ments brought about the very
changes about which she
writes. Schimpf's argument is
baffling because she argues
that the feminist movement
should be about what it is
already about. Feminists
work every day to improve
the cultural, political and
economic conditions under
which women live, so that the

Legalizing pot
would wreak
havoc on socie y
T he striking scent of marijuana will
float over the Diag on Saturday, as
the University community is sched
uled to witness the 26th annual Hash
Bash. The event, which features a rally
to legalize marijuana, attracts partici-
pants from around the country.
While many stu-
dents find Hash
Bash to be quite
enjoyable or
worthwhile, many
others - includ-
ing myself -feel i
ripples of discon-
tent every year.
The purpose and
message of Hash
Bash are cause for ZACHARY
great concern.ZAHR .
Proponents of the SMOA"
legalization of SMOKORE
marijuana argue MIRRORS
that the drug has minimal or no harm-
ful long-term effects. Also, they con
tend that it is not the government's role
to ban marijuana. (I will leave the
issue of medicinal use of marijuana for
another day, or another columnist.)
Unfortunately, these people are
deeply misguided. Legalizing marijua-
na would be a grave error. The drug
has harmful effects - both physically
and culturally - that threaten to hurt
individuals, erode order and stability;
and create more widespread use of
illicit drugs. Moreover, the Hash Bash
event itself is a sad and depressing use
of one's First Amendment rights.
Effects and order
Despite decades of research, there
appears to be no definitive answer to
whether marijuana causes severe long-
term physiological damage to users.
For every expert who says it does not
jeopardize a person's health, there, is
someone to refute the claim. This
uncertainty is reason enough to keep
the drug illegal.s
What little researchers do know
makes the case against legalization.
stronger. Most medical experts and
marijuana users agree that smoking a
joint makes a person "high" and, as A
result, one's mental state is impaired.
Motor skills are not as sharp, remem-
bering actions becomes more difficult,
and perceptions are altered. Th-
National Institute on Drug Abuse sawd
in some cases the physiological effect
include "intense anxiety, panic attack,
or paranoia." In the end, users yiel.
temporary control of themselves.
This, then, places the individual in
great risk. Worse, the individual
becomes a threat to others. If one's
judgments are altered, then an entire
community or society is at risk. The
individual may lose sight of what is
right and wrong, legal and illegal, and
commit acts that harm others. (Many
argue that alcohol produces the same
effect. While it does, one glass of beer,
generally, does not pose the same
threat as one joint. So, individuals can
regulate more easily the intoxicating
effect of alcohol.)
Marijuana users are a threat to this
country's safety, stability and order,
not to mention themselves. It is the
government's obligation to protect the
society at large.
A gateway
Marijuana is often viewed as a "gate-
way" to harsher drugs, and it therefore
must remain illegal. The theory goes
like this: Illicit drug users begin with
marijuana and then move onto cocaine

and other stronger drugs. In a cover
story in February, Newsweek maga-
zine reported that "reliable research
shows that virtually all heroin and
cocaine addicts started out with pot:'
By legalizing marijuana, the govern-
ment would be giving all of its citizens
a legal starting point to jump into
worse and more harmful drugs. Such
drug use could become more rampant,
and all of the evils that accompany
drugs - like crime - " would roll
across America at a quicker pace.
In the end, legalizing marijuana
sends the wrong message, especially
to young children. They will come to
see that it is OK to engage in an activ-
ity that so easily leads ond to yield self
control and place others in danger. It
may encourage young people to exper-
iment with illicit drugs. All of this'
would contribute to a national lower-
ing of standards between right and
wrong, and safe and unsafe activity.
Cultural depravity
Despite all of the risks involved in
marijuana use, thousands of people will
descend upon Ann Arbor on Saturday
and rally for the right to use it.
Although I am opposed to its legal-
ization, I usually stroll through the
crowds to try to understand what it's
all about. And each year, I leave the
Diag frustrated with those who've
come out to rally. The event is a gross

OR

"I