Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue


Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

December 08, 1998 - Image 4

Resource type:
The Michigan Daily, 1998-12-08

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

4 - The Michigan Daily - Tuesday, December 8, 1998

~Ife £idii an &dtlg

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

Editor in Chief
Editorial Page Editor

'They were thrilled to have the opportunity
to write to college students.'
- Mitchell Elementary School teacher Donna Davison, whose third- and
fourth-grade students participate in the K-grams pen pal program

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.
Closed doors
'U' decides to revoke Granger's admission


j . .
r ,

Last week, it was revealed that the
University has permanently revoked
the admission of Daniel Granger, who is
currently serving time in prison for con-
spiracy to contribute to the delinquency of
a minor. The University had previously
suspended Granger's admission after he
was charged with statutory rape; in
October, administrators decided that his
admission should be revoked. The
University's actions essentially overstep
the judicial system and add to Granger's
It is certainly true that Granger is not
the noblest of characters, and that his
actions showed a great lack of judgment,
to say the least. But the fact remains that
the goal of the prison system is rehabilita-
tion. And once Granger serves his sen-
tence, he should be rehabilitated. It is not
the University's place to add to Granger's
sentence: His jail term was punishment
enough in the eyes of the law. In addition,
Granger's crimes were not committed on
campus and have nothing to do with the
University. Since Granger has already
been legally held accountable for his
actions, the University should respect the
actions of the judical and corrections sys-
tems and perform its top duty of being a
center for higher education.
Once a person convicted of a crime has
fulfilled his or her sentence, that person is
ready to become a productive member of
society again. But the actions of the
University interfere with the rehabilitation
process - denying an education to a per-
son who has paid his or her debt to society
can disrupt that person's reintegration into
society. Pursuing an education should be
taken as a sign that a person wishes to con-
tribute to society and improve themselves.

That is effectively what the justice system
asks for.
Aside from the University's decision
that Granger's prison term was not a fit-
ting sentence, the revocation of his
admission overlooks the fact that other
students have been allowed to remain at
the University after being found guilty of
similar misdemeanor charges. While the
original charge of statutory rape is a
felony, that charge was dropped and
Granger was convicted of a misdemeanor.
While this may be cause to reject an
application, revoking an admission is
another matter, and Granger had already
been granted admission to the University.
Others in similar situations have contin-
ued as University students despite their
actions. Although Granger's crime caused
a great deal of pain for a number of peo-
ple, whether or not he would cause prob-
lems on campus is not something that the
University - or anyone, for that matter
- can predict.
Although Granger's actions reflect
poor judgment and a disregard for the
well-being of others, cancelling his
admission is the wrong course of action.
Admitting Granger to the University
would probably not cause a significant
risk to the campus population, and other
students who have been convicted of a
misdemeanor have been allowed to
remain at the University. Finally, the
University's revocation of his admission
means that, in effect, the University is
declaring that the justice system is not
capable of doing its job, a statement the
administration does not have the right to
make. In this case, the University's effort
to punish an inappropriate action steps on
Granger's rights.


Court's decision attacks Fourth Amendment

T he U.S. Supreme Court continued its
assault on the Fourth Amendment last
week, reinstating two drug convictions that
were overturned by Minnesota's highest court
in the case of Minnesota v. Carter. Two men
were arrested in 1994 after a police officer -
without a warrant - peered through the
closed blinds of a woman's apartment and
observed them putting white powder into a
plastic bag. Chief Justice William H.
Rehnquist explained why the Court dissented
from a 1990 ruling that upheld the privacy
rights of overnight guests in a person's home
under the Fourth Amendment, which pro-
hibits unreasonable searches and seizures.
Rehnquist wrote for the Court, "(a)n
overnight guest in a home may claim the pro-
tection of the Fourth Amendment but one
who is merely present with the consent of the
householder may not." Following the 6-3
decision on the Minnesota case, the justices
voted 5-4 in favor of upholding the privacy
rights of "almost all social guests."
The implication is that the two men arrest-
ed in Minnesota do not deserve Fourth
Amendment protection because they did not
know the home owner well enough.
Rehnquist wrote that "property used for com-
mercial purposes is treated differently under
the Fourth Amendment than residential prop-
erty." In a Clinton-esque feat of verbal manip-
ulation, Rehnquist managed to define a
woman's private apartment as commercial
rather than residential property. His decision
also stated that "there is no suggestion that
they had a previous relationship with (the
woman)." The Fourth Amendment protects all
people from illegal searches of their "persons,
houses, papers, and effects" - it does not
.. tl. r }l -. swA Ar.~ 4 i I A A SSlY YfJ

they visit. The Court's ruling is based on its
interpretation of a legitimate social relation-
ship. The government has no right to make
such subjective and arbitrary decisions.
The Minnesota case is part of a protracted
reconstructive surgery being performed on
the Fourth Amendment by the judiciary. In
1996, following the case of a traffic stop in
Washington, D.C., the Court ruled that police
may search someone if they have a "reason-
able" excuse to suspect wrongdoing. In such
cases, there is a risk of having the ends justify
the means - police officers may obtain evi-
dence illegally and then claim a "reasonable"
suspicion based on the evidence gathered.
This circular logic is exactly what the Fourth
Amendment is designed to protect people
from. The latest defilement of the sanctity of
the home - which Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg called, in her dissenting opinion,
"the most essential bastion of privacy recog-
nized by the law" - is itself an example of
an increase in the ability of law enforcement
agents to spy on people in their houses. A
1988 Supreme Court ruling, Florida v. Riley,
allowed police to use low-flying helicopters to
conduct searches of private property when a
warrant could not be obtained.
In an age when surveillance cameras
have becomes fixtures in virtually every
public building and even on some streets,
people's homes have become more impor-
tant as asylums of privacy and security.
Most Americans would not feel comfortable
in a world where police officers are allowed
to peep into their windows and examine
their private lives. But thanks to the
Supreme Court, George Orwell's famous,
vision of a looming, omnipresent govern.-
- -st .-.ret -~ - - - - Hra ,. - - tr5 a- r. ,l - -

Concern for
day off is
This letter is in reference
to Adam Weinrich's letter on
Dec. 4, "Extra days off are a
waste of money."
I am writing to object to
what Weinrich writes. He
makes it seem as if it is a
worldly injustice that
Wednesday classes are lax.
Well, the reality is two fold.
First of all, many classes are
not like this and professors
teach in the exact same way
as they normally do. Second,
that extra day does indeed
matter for those traveling
long distances. Thanksgiving
break is something that stu-
dents have as a time to reload
for the final push of the
semester. Having one extra
day (unofficially) - and not
for everyone either - is not
such a big deal. And as for
the money we spend being so
important; I suggest Weinrich
reconsider the money that is
being wasted if he sleeps in
and misses a class or just
decides to skip for the hell of
it. Also, since education is far
too important, then I am sure
that Weinrich has never pro-
crastinated or gone out
instead of studied.
Let's face it, the whole
Wednesday before
Thanksgiving is not even an
issue and I question anyone
who is so disturbed by it (get
a real cause to write about).
Most people in their right
mind would gladly take an
extra day off, but I guess
there are exceptions.
Letter writer
support GEO
I am writing in response to
Michael Shafrir's letter ("GSIs
need more training," 12/3/98)
supporting the University's
proposal (whatever it is) in
contract negotiations with
GEO. As a GSI who has taught
in four different departments
and programs at the University,
I share his concern about ade-
quate training for GSIs.
But if he had used the "rea-
soning" in his letter in a paper
written for my class, he would-
n't have gotten a very good
grade. He claims that since his
GSI has not gotten enough
training, GSIs do not deserve a
"drastic" pay increase.
First of all, he should
know that any training GSIs
currently do receive is a
result of efforts by GEO, not
the University administration.
I encourage him to contact
the GEO Pedagov

provide undergraduates with
the best teaching possible. If
Shafrir wants his GSIs to have
more training, he should sup-
port GEO's proposal for a liv-
ing wage for GSIs. This would
assure him of future GSIs who
are not working two jobs to
make ends meet (spending less
time and energy on their stu-
dents) and of a University that
has put its money where its
mouth is in terms of standards
of excellence both in teaching
and research.
The University chooses to
put first-time GSIs with only
a week of training in charge
of so many classrooms in
order to save money - more
and more money over the
years as GSIs have taken over
more and more classrooms,
more and more grading and
fallen further and further
behind the cost of living in
Ann Arbor. The lack of com-
mitment to students and par-
ents paying large amounts of
tuition is on the part of the
University administration, not
on the part of GEO or GSIs.
Shafrir and his parents should
demand that more of the
tuition dollars they pay go
toward excellence in the class-
room - toward better training
and better compensation for
GSIs for the huge amount of
work they do on this campus.
Profanity was
not added to
As the producer of
"Grease," I would like to
respond to Julie Wellnitz's let-
ter ("Grease' was inappropri-
ate for families," 12/3/98)
regarding the inappropriate-
ness of our show. First of all,
she contends that'"'Grease'
has done just fine the way it
was made for years . .." She
is accurate in assuming this.
But her assumption that the
"foul language and behavior"
were additions made by
MUSKET is completely inac-
curate. Every "profane" word
spoken in our show was a
part of the book, music and
lyrics written by Jim Jacobs
and Warren Casey.
I feel that it is MUSKET's
duty as a student-run organi-
zation to make our production
a learning experience for
everyone involved. In my
opinion, our goals were
reached. Wellnitz failed to
recognize MUSKET's addi-
tion of a children's musical
theatre workshop this year. We
invited all of the fifth-grade
classes in the Ann Arbor and
Ypsilanti school districts to
attend a two-hour participato-
ry workshop on the morning
of our opening. We devoted
our entire morning to teaching
the approximately 100 chil-
dren who attended the ins and

changes were made. Ernie
Nolan, the show's director,
and Jeremy Davis, the show's
choreographer and Nolan's
collaborator, made additions
and deletions in order to
accommodate the dramatic
increase in interest in partici-
pation in this show. Nolan
and Davis, as described in the
Daily's preview article, were
striving to artistically chal-
lenge their cast by adding a
new dimension to the already
well-known show. But this
was not achieved by adding
"adult language or themes."
These elements have always
been there. I would invite
Wellnitz to have a look at the
script sometime in order to
make comparisons between
what she saw and what was
originally a part of the show.
Daily fails
to cover
chess team
Although the Daily sent a
photographer to the first-ever
U of M vs. Michigan State
University chess tournament, it
did not cover the story in the
paper. As a student newspaper,
part of the Daily's goal should
be to cover new and exciting
events in the University com-
munity. The members of the
University Chess Club and
Michigan Chess Team feel that
the Daily neglected that duty.
Alumni are
not to blame
Reza Breakstone, likely
recognizing his failures as the
newest so-called "Superfan,"
unfairly casts the University's
alumni as scapegoats for the
docile crowds at Michigan
Stadium ("Alumni need to be
more active," 12/1/98).
Initially, how can
Breakstone determine which
fans at football games are
alumni rather than ordinary
ticketholders from the general
public? How can he attribute
overall lackadaisical fan sup-
port to one group of fans?
With regard to late-arriving
fans, it is self-evident (looking
at the upper rows of the stu-
dent sections during the first
quarter of games) that students
are most guilty of this sin.
Finally, Breakstone laments
the difficulty of getting alumni
to perform the wave at games.
Breakstone should.be aware
that most fans go to the stadi-
um to watch games and cheer
for Michigan, and not to par-
ticipate in senseless activities
such as the wave (which I

The 20-something,,
guy is not all
that bad, just ask
Susan and Sarah
( S ex and The City," an HBO series
staring Sarah Jessica Parker, is
probably the best production to come.
from the king of post-modern feminist
glory, Darren Star - others being
"Beverly Hills
90210" and
"Melrose Place."
obsessed with
materialistic shows
based on beautiful
bodies and debat-
able dialogue, Star
finally gets it right
on cable, probably
due to the fact that SARAH
innuendoes can LOCKYER
now be overtly stat- L oc )%
ed, and he does I
with perfect timing,
Other than "The Larry Sanders
Show" and "Arli$$," most HBO come-
dies leave much to be desired. And with
the exception of Tracy Ulman's "Tracy
Takes On," "Sex and the City" readily
fills the void of smart female-less com-
edy. The old boys club of Garry
Shandling, Dennis Milleraand Chris
Rock is cancelled, ruled and rocked
with the entrance of Sarah Jessica
Parker and company. And lucky for us,
until Dec. 12, an episode will air every
day at 8:30 p.m. on HBO 2.
The show focuses on four 30-something
women. Scratch that, the show focuses on
the sex lives of four 30-something women
who are raunchy and regular, horny and
homely, smart and sexy, prurient and pure,
This fabulous four offers women a true
expression of feminist power - these
women like sex, want sex and aren't afraid
to ask, demand, stumble upon and beg for
it. But perhaps the funniest part of the
show focuses on the men. Scratch that,
perhaps the funniest part of the show
focuses on the boys who pretend and try to
be men. Sarah and company love men.
And one episode showed that they even
love the lowest of the low. This episode
discussed the sexual, and not so sexual,
habits of our dear friends -20-something
At this University, by default I'm sure,
the 20-something guy is god - and until
we get into the real world, they're all we
have to pray to. Now, real world 30-some-
things will probably end up being just as
dysfunctional as their collegiate counter-
parts, but everyone can dream, right? But
until May (at least for us lucky enough to
be graduating) the 20-something guy is
all we have. Their tapestries, incense,
lofts and ladders; the inevitable lack of
toilet paper or any non-alcoholic bever-
ages; the required roommates, empty
pizza boxes and crates-and-plywood-
come-coffee tables have all become part
of the enigmatic environment of the 20-
somethings. The walks of shame and the
talks of game, our guys put us through the
solitude of the morning after and the bore
of the pre-game. This is something that
no woman deserves, I mean, what these
guys are holding onto is not youth or
independence - it's filth.
But thanks to a fellow blond-haired
Sarah, the "delights" of these dysfunc-
tional dwellers are finally illuminated
- eagerness, desire, need yet empti-
ness, destitution, nothingness.
According to Sarah's TV persona, these*
guys who prowl around TDs, Rick's and
S'keepers are not the complicated
thinkers that we take them for. They're
not deep, nor distinguished - they're

just plain horny. So to master the art of
the impossible, a.k.a. dating at the
University, we need to do nothing more
than play to the 20-something weak-
nesses. Even Susan Sarandon - anoth-
er woman burning with balls-out sexual
bravado - understands the way of the
20-something guy. As she so eloquently
stated in the beginning of "Bull
Durham," "A man will listen to anything
you say if he thinks it's foreplay."
Susan and Sarah offer some salvation
to the plight of us who have done noth-
ing more than toss and turn over
whether or not he'll call, they give us a
solution to the age old question of "does
he care?" and they provide a profound
understanding of these Darwin-chal-
lenged members of the opposite sex.
The actions of these women, at least on
the screen, encourage us to simply take
the 20-something guy for what he's
worth - almost nothing, but just
enough to give us what we need.
We should play with them, nicely, and
humor them, on occasion. After all, we
do have needs, and if we're not going to
get decent conversations - that mean-
ing anything more than "Didn't your
cousin go to camp with my brother?" -
then we might as well take advantage of
their, how should I say, acrobatic attrib-
utes. As "Sex and the City" laid out
before us, 20-something guys want it, so
why not take it, rather than give it.
It's clear, however, that Susan and Sarah

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan