4 - The Michigan Daily - Tuesday, April 15, 1997 a1jz Eidi~gz &ztilg 420 Maynard Street Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Edited and managed by students at the University of M ichigan JOSH WHITE Editor in Chief ERIN MARSH Editorial Page Editor 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 Ovelo mfkAND& NOTABLE QUOTABLE 'The legislature cannot mlcromanage the University or mandate any plans the University may have for Its employees.' - Sen. John Schwarz (R-Battle Creek), supporting State Attorney General Frank Kelley's decision to grant universities autonomy in negotiating employee packages Yui KUNiYUKGROUND ZERO ire ~/s Alof , rrex7 KCpr /AJ 1v. feopc r IT WAS ON 0D6'( 4Gtrvt s.' -3'AC.KiE 126ae snAJ LETTERS TO THE EDITOR GSIs face unfairly heavy workloads I n University foreign language classes, students are no longer the only ones say- ing "no comprendo.' Foreign language Graduate Student Instructors do not under- stand why their workloads exceed the allot- ted 16 hours per section, per week. On Wednesday, more than 20 GSIs graded homework assignments outside LSA Associate Dean John Cross' office in the LSA building. The protest effectively illus- trated their point - overworked GSIs can- not teach at their maximum capacity. In high school, graded homework is assigned nightly. This is unnecessary in higher education - University students should be self-motivated. However, romance language classes continue to hold students by the hand. As in many other courses, instructors could give ungraded assignments daily and administer examinations two or three times per semester. Grading each assignment is unnecessary and will not help students more than assigning ungraded homework; those students who do the home- work will do better on the exams. GSIs must routinely grade formal com- positions, workbook assignments, journal entries, class participation and oral exams, along with holding weekly office hours. It is easy for instructors, under these condi- tions, to become disillusioned and lack- adaisical. Jarrold Hayes, a romance lan- guage associate professor, accurately assesses the situation by saying that "it is impossible to have a proper foreign lan- guage education when GSIs are over- worked." The cost of hiring professors to fill GSI- held positions would be enormous. GSIs get very little compensation for competently and effectively instructing their classes. The University should be grateful for their ser- vices they deserve administrative support and backing. Cross should address foreign language GSI workload problems immedi- ately - however, he has failed to do so. The Ad Hoc Committee on Teaching Load, a group of romance language GSIs supported by the Graduate Employees' Organization, met with Cross to discuss their concerns in December and demanded a response by Jan. 8. When no response was given by February, they sent Cross the results of an external review on reducing GSI workload. Cross still has not responded - and a series of grade-ins will be held until he satisfies their requests. Cross and his fellow administrators, by failing to ful- fill their responsibility to expeditiously respond to teachers' concerns, are unneces- sarily putting themselves at odds with GSIs. It is good to see that, in spite of adminis- trative mistreatment, GEO has decided to employ positive protesting practices. Like last year's organized walkout, the GSI grade-in is another example of GEO's effec- tive demonstrations. Undergraduate stu- dents should recognize GSIs' value and give them the support they deserve. The administration should revamp romance language classes. The curriculum imposes too much graded work, placing an unnecessary burden on teachers and not, allowing students to pursue their academic goals independently. Moreover, the adminis- tration has delayed for four months in responding to a complaint that it should have addressed immediately. If administrators do not work toward fostering a better relation- ship with GSIs, they will increasingly be unable to give students the high-quality edu- cation they expect from the University. Across state lines Registry would help control gun trafficking The federal government and the National Rifle Association have always been at odds when it came to the issue of federal versus state gun control. However, a new congressional study, using information from the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, provides information that is sure to lend credit to the need for federal regulation. The study shows that only a handful of states with lax gun-control regulations are putting firearms in the rest of the nation's hands. The details of the study give conclusive evidence that federal gun control is a neces- sity in order to protect the whole nation. The report showed that, of guns seized in states other than where they were sold, 25 percent could be traced back to only four states: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and Texas. Ten states with the loosest gun-con- trol laws are responsible for selling 54.2 percent of all the guns traced to 1996 crimes in states other than the place of sale. The selling states are primarily in the South and most of the guns are exported to the North on major highways such as Interstate 95. Because this study shows the flow to be so one-directional, interesting points arise. First, because certain states serve pri- marily as gun exporters, where they exist, gun-control laws appear to work. This is the first study that conclusively shows that gun control works; states with weaker gun-con- trol laws are exporting guns to states with tougher gun-control laws. For the federal government to be able to trace guns used in crimes throughout the nation to a few states c~nan.. an vnF ' a rso:nn : 4m-12-n- ev Second, because differences in gun-con- trol laws create opportunities for illegal gun trafficking, legislation should focus primar- ily on the gun runners. Much like the war against drugs aims to crack down on drug dealers, gun control should seek to stop gun trafficking at the source. To this end, Rep. Charles Schumer (D-Brooklyn) introduced new legislation that would make gun run- ning a federal crime. The measure would make it illegal for anyone to sell five or more guns across state lines within a one- year period with the intent of selling or transferring the guns to another person. However, a national gun registration system could be the only way to determine who sells more than five guns per year across state lines. Even though Schumer's legislation is already controversial and is receiving heat from organizations such as the NRA, it could be a necessary step to curb the coun- try's gun-control problem. In the past, it would have been difficult to develop and compile the data that was used in the con- gressional study. The '80s was a decade of political pressure to back off national gun control. But under President Clinton, the firearms agency has been allowed to expand its role in tracing guns used in crimes. Now, with the new information and conclusive evidence about crime and gun control, legislators should apply the data toward stern legislation. When faced with conclusive evidence that links lax gun-control laws to an increase in gun trafficking and crime, the C.--al-nvrn.-nt hmA t alcs n ctnn ROTC cadets are right to use the Arb To THE DAILY: This letter is written in response to Ronald Holzhacker's efforts to rid Nichols Arboretum of ROTC cadets ("Student wants ROTC out of Arb," 4/11/97). What we must remember in this discussion is that the Arb is owned by the University and is intended for "everyone to enjoy and use.' Army and Air Force ROTC cadets (I'm not sure if Navy ROTC midshipmen train in the Arb) use the Arb to sup- plement their training in valuable exercises. These exercises allow these hard- working cadets to prepare for active duty service in the U.S. military. The security of the nation and its allies will someday depend on these future leaders. Besides this, these cadets should be respected for what they are doing - serving their country, something which is no longer a first pri- ority of many Americans. Holzhacker brings up the fact that he was concerned about possible paramilitary group activity in the Arb. Here's a quick lesson in how you can distinguish between paramilitary organi- zations and the U.S. military: When cadets or active duty members are wearing their battle dress uniform (BDUs) - the camouflage fatigues they were wearing in the Arb - look over the left breast pocket. If the tape says "U.S. Army" or "U.S. Air Force," etc., you're dealing with the real thing! It's really quite simple. What we need to realize here is that these cadets are students who work hard to someday serve their country on active duty. They are not people to be shunned and pushed aside. They should be respected. As long as these ROTC training exercises do not harm the physical plant and wildlife of the Arb, why must Holzhacker be con- cerned? I suggest he find something else to complain about. AARON BROOKS ENGINEERING JUNIOR Affirm ative action works for equality TO THE DAILY: I am writing to express my support for affirmative action. Although it may be an energy. In the familiar con- text of higher education, it fuels two principal missions: No. 1. To avail university access to individual students who, as racial minorities in a historically racist culture, have been systematically denied the educational oppor- tunities of the majority. No. 2. To increase the presence, both in number and in spirit, of minority students on campus as a means of dis- placing negative stereotypes with individual realities, with the further hope of not only teaching tolerance but also cultivating an appreciation of diversity. The first mission seeks to rectify individual inequities, while the latter endeavors to reform, through education, the system that created the imbalances in the first place. The most commonly articulated argument against affirmative action is that it is as racist to admit students on the basis of their color as it is to reject students on that same basis. Some contend that since there are only a limited number of spaces in a given student body, the race- based acceptance of one stu- dent is a race-based rejection of another. While these arguments may appear rhetorically sound, they oversimplify our present reality. Inherent in cries of "reverse racism" is a very particular notion of what it means for one student to be "more qualified" than another. Even the seemingly most objective standard, the SAT, is subject to the artifi- cial disparities created by professional test preparation - a mostly white upper mid- dle class institution - as well as by the cultural bias of the exam itself. In my experience, lack of easy access to education is at least as good a predictor of "success" in college as cor- rect replies to a handful of analogies. If we simply began to appreciate the persever- ance and ingenuity of stu- dents who have overcome society-rooted obstacles such as racism, classism, disabili- ty-bias, ageism, sexism and homophobia (not to mention acute personal struggles which lack even the refuge of a named "-ism") and the potential value of their unique perspectives, then we could dispense of "affirma- tive action" as a matter of politically correct policy, while continuing to make racially-informed admissions decisions, simply in keeping with our values and beliefs. If we are ever to realize the vision of a peaceful and just society then we must curb the urge to couch advances in civil rights as "their gain is my loss." When one student receives an Move will not improve accessibility To THE DAILY: This letter is written in response to the article "Bollinger announces plan to move out of Fleming" (4/9/97). I'd like to address the decision of President Bollinger to move the admin- istrative offices out of the Fleming Administrative Building "into the center of campus." Apparently, Bollinger feels that this will."symbol- ize Bollinger's desire to bring the administration closer to the student body." To me, it symbolizes the students los- ing out to the bureaucracy once again. In order to accomplish his "symbolic" goal, he would have to dis- place a major section of the classrooms located on central campus, in order to fit the entire administrative staff. Those classrooms, logic would dictate, would be relo- cated to the Fleming build- ing. So, now the administra- tion is more accessible, but the classrooms are not. This makes no sense whatsoever. Is this symbolic plan really more important than the stu- dents being able to have more classes on central campus? Bollinger's desire to make the administration more accessible seems like a rea- sonable goal, but not if its going to inconvenience more students in the process. Especially considering that no internal modifications of that inaccessible administra- tion have been mentioned. Relocating the offices won't change what goes on inside them. Also, I don't think Bollinger really understands the problems students have with the administration inac- cessibility. It's not that the building is located so far away from campus that stu- dents don't want to walk all the way there (it's across the street from Angel Hall) or that the architecture is so imposing that students won't enter. It is that the current administrative bureaucracy is inaccessible because of red tape and paperwork, not walking distance or architec- ture. It's quite clear that Bollinger's plan to move the administrative offices is sym- bolic, but nothing more. Instead of symbolizing a change in procedure, perhaps Bollinger's time and the stu- dent's tuition dollars would be better served in actually . - . -- . Where have you gone, Jean Luc Goddard? oreign films have long been a favorite play-thing for the cultural elite; since the 1930s, social critics, intellectuals and snobby-types have enjoyed few things more than pontifi cating on the latest Bergman, Goddard, Truffaut and the like. (1 admit! This col- umn is named for Jean Renoir clas- sic, "Grand Illusion.") But only recently have foreign films become the sole property of the > intellectual class; while Fellini may have been a favorite topic of SAMUEL conversation at GODTN cocktail parties in GOODSTEIN the 1960s, he also GRANo had a following ILLUSION amongst the non-cocktail-party crowd. Indeed in 1962, foreign films com- prised 10 percent of the American film market. Even 10 years ago, foreigr4 films were a force to be reckoned with at the box office, taking up 7 percent of the U.S. market. Their decline since then has been shocking. Today, foreign films make up a paltry .75 percent of the market - an all-time low. This number is even more telling when you consider that there has been one rela- tively big foreign film each of the past few years (e.g. "Il Postino," "Belle de Jour," "Shine") that has taken up good chunk of this .75 perent. Th- foreign film market is dying fast - and one hit per year cannot save it. Of course, fewer viewers translates into fewer screens for those who still have an interest. The Economist (which recently published a fine arti- cle on this topic) noted that out of a grand total of 30,000 movie theatres in the U.S., only 250 regularly play for- eign flicks - Ann Arborites, o course, are fortunate to have Th Michigan Theater and the Cinema Guild (which, by the way, counts my father as a past president). As sure as the screens stop screening, the distrib- utors stop distributing. New Yorker Films, once one of the most prominent foreign film distributors in the coun- try, has seen their annual distribution fall from about 50 films in the '60s and '70s to about one in the '90s. The decline is undeniable. What i4 the cause? The temptation is to blame Hollywood. After all, its an easy tar- get: Hollywood studios generally pro- duce garbage and spend incredible sums of money to promote it. Studio executives' careers depend on produc- ing major box-office hits, not penetrat- ing drama, so the tendency is for Hollywood to dumb-down their movies. However, these facts have more or less always been the reality i Hollywood; they hardly explain the almost complete disappearance of for- eign films from U.S. screens. The, answer lies elsewhere. One key factor that, when combined with Hollywood's box-office mania, drove foreign movies out is the take- over of the theatre industry by major companies. Whereas small theatres (a la The State Theater, Ann Arbor 1 and 2, The Rialto, etc.) once thrived it almost every city, today's cinema mar- ket is driven by giant companies (a la. Showcase). These giants have almost no financial incentive to screen a risky foreign film, and - unlike some of the old, smaller theatres - would. never show a foreign movie-because it happened to be interesting. They have no incentive to be experimental, because their level of dominance in the industry has grown to the point tha4 they don't need to take any risks." Thankfully, foreign films may have gained some credibility with the. Showcases of the world this year - thanks to-"Shine" and a few other fine movies that were big box-office draws.; Even the changing cinema market,. however, does not fully explain the trend. To a certain degree, one must assume that even Showcase would' respond if there were a strong deman One factor just might be that foreigi films just aren't that good any more. This argument is based on the following logic: Old foreign movies used to grap- ple with issues such as God's existence, man's fate in a chaotic world, and poli- tics. Toda, the argument continues, for- eign film-makers are falling prey to what Bernardo Bertolucci called "a hor- rible neo-conformism ... (where) the words unique and original are becomin4 insults instead of compliments." This, combined with the industry-driven changes in the U.S, could certainly sag the market. Finally, it is possible that Americans just don't appreciate art-in-film like. they used to. This argument, which I. I