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 10, 1998 - Image 4

Resource type:
The Michigan Daily, 1998-12-10

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

4A - The Michigan Daily - Thursday, December 10, 1998

ije S ~iuu Ouilg

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

Editor in Chief
Editorial Page Editor

'Unless this committee and the House act on a
bipartisan basis and reach out for the common ground
... you should not, you must not vote to impeach.'
-former US. Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman (D-New York), who served on the House
Judiciary Committee during Watergate, speaking to the Committee on Tuesday

Unless otherwise noted, unsigned editorials reflect the opinion of the majority of the Daily ' editorial board.
All other articles. letters and cartoons do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Michigan Daily.
You've got mai
Letters reflect the Code's problems

The case ofDan
and Monica
R umors sometimes fly through this
campus with surprising speed.
A couple months ago, word had it
that a bunch of kids would get hacked
up at Markley on Halloween. At its
peak, this rumor
was inescapable.
We discussed it in
classes; I overheard
it in coffee houses
and hallways; Daily
staffers fretted
about how to report
the paranoia with-
out promoting it.
By the end of this
cycle, I was having JEFF





T he University's Code of Student Conduct
has reared its ugly head once again. 133
students who recently received alcohol viola-
tions from the Ann Arbor Police Department
have been sent letters by the Office of Student
Conflict Resolution informing them that they
have violated the Code.
The letters, which included alcohol
awarcness pamphlets and an alcohol depen-
dency quiz, stated that charges would be
brought up under the Code in the event of
another violation. Punishments for violat-
ing the Code go all the way up to expulsion.
Although the Higher Education Act allows
the University to inform parents of students
involved in drug and alcohol incidents, let-
ters were not sent out to parents.
As a public and academic institution, the
University acts completely out of line when it
enforces moral and legal standards. The
University has long prided itself on its com-
mitment to maintaining diversity, but resorts
to draconian tactics in order to create a moral-
ly homogenous student body. This particular
instance is particularly absurd in that the
University is in no way defending any sort of
universal moral truth but rather a hotly con-
tested and distihetly American law intended to
protect individuals from themselves.
The purpose of any institution of higher
learing is to help students build solid intel-
lectual and personal foundations from which
they will grow for a lifetime and from which
morality sprouts. Instead of ramming its own
values down students' throats, the University
needs to maintain a focus on strengthening
academics so students can make rational
choices as they develop their own principles.
Academia can only thrive in a free atmos-

phere where standard conventions can be
challenged. Just as it is vital for the
University to provide a neutral setting for
open intellectual discourse, the University
must remain similarly neutral toward any
actions that have nothing to do with its func-
tions or purpose. The University does not
ally itself with any particular school of
thought and likewise, it should not take or
enforce any sort of moral stance.
Civilization has developed different insti-
tutions to protect itself. The purpose of uni-
versities is to foster progressive thought, and
the purpose of the legal system is to maintain
the rule of law. Consequently, when both
institutions operate within their designated
spheres of influence, society works better.
Needless to say, the vast majority of students
at the University are adults who ought to
answer to the legal system when they break
the law. Once an individual has been pun-
ished under the law, their debt to society is
considered paid. The University needs to
scrap the archaic doctrine of in loco parentis
(literally, in lieu of parents) and recognize
students' moral autonomy.
Instead of trying to play the role of parent,
judge and teacher, the University needs to
return to what it does best - education. The
mass mailing of threats to the 133 students
written up for alcohol violations reflect a
policy that is not only counterproductive but
hypocritical as well. It is impossible to claim
diversity as a core value and then hold stu-
dents to specific moral standards, especially
when the values enforced - a rejection of
underage drinking - are moral gray areas.
The University has no jurisdiction over stu-
dents' values.





Whyman should take responsibility for actions

Most people would agree that discrimi-
nation or prejudice of any sort should
not be tolerated in society. The 20th Century
has witnessed civil rights changes that allow
the United States to pride itself on its efforts to
eliminate bias in society.
But as we move into the 21st Century, one
group has been ioticeably exempt from civil
rights advancements: the gay and lesbian
community. Frequently ridiculed, the gay and
lesbian community is still seeking to achieve
the most basic civil rights already granted to
other minority groups.
But on Monday, the gay and lesbian com-
munity took a step forward in its quest for
equal treatment. State Rep. Deborah Whyman
(R-Canton) agreed to pay an undisclosed
amount to settle a defamation suit filed
against her by the Triangle Foundation, a
Detroit-based gay and lesbian advocacy
group. The Foundation objected to literature
from Whyman's 1996 campaign that said it
supports pedophiles.
The settlement represents progress for the
gay and lesbian community. For too long,
slander and libel against gay and lesbian
grips has been largely accepted in society.
The settlement of the Whyman case shows
that unsubstantiated claims against gay and
lesbian groups will no longer be tolerated.
The Triangle Foundation is satisfied with
t,' settlement. As Foundation Executive
Drector Jeffrey Montgomery said to The Ann
A rbor News, "Whyman's loss (in the dispute)
sends a clear message to extremist anti-gay
groups and individuals. You have a right to
believe whatever you choose to believe, but
when you publish claims of fact, you'd better
get your facts straight."
Although the settlement of the case is a
victory for the gay and lesbian community,
they should not be completely satisfied with
the resolution of the defamation suit against
.ll [ ,,/yp Al1 c ar wi th Ethl-: r nxit nru' -

tions, Whyman needs to take responsibility
for her inappropriate act and apologize to the
gay and lesbian community. Presently,
Whyman continues to believe that she has
done nothing wrong. As Whyman said, "The
homosexual extremists at the Triangle
Foundation knew they had a horrible case to
present to the jury, so they agreed to settle this
nuisance suit."
By calling the Triangle Foundation's suit
"a nuisance" and saying that the group had a
"horrible case," Whyman is implying that she
has done nothing wrong - an assertion that
stands in stark contrast to her agreement to
settle out of court. Until Whyman assumes the
blame for her act and agrees to apologize to
the gay and lesbian community, justice will
not truly be served.
Furthermore, under the agreement,
Whyman is required to make a donation to
a charity in the Foundation's name. Instead
of this, the money should go directly to the
Foundation's coffers. Whyman said to The
Ann Arbor News that she will "make a
small donation to a real charity" and will
keep the Triangle Foundation from "getting
one thin dime," implying that the
Foundation is unworthy of her money. In
light of her unsubstantiated claims against
the gay and lesbian community, Whyman
should have to give the money to the
Triangle Foundation. They should be able to
decide how to distribute the money in
exchange for their defamation.
The time is long past due for stronger
penalties against people like Whyman who
believe that unsubstantiated claims against the
gay and lesbian community will go unpun-
ished. Although the settlement of the defama-
tion suit against her is a step in the right direc-
tion, there is still much progress to be made.
In the future, settlements in cases like this
should include the agreement that accused
will awitn m pcnihility andarilnpi'r

U should
reject current
form of CLC
Many thanks to the Daily
for its article addressing the
current debate over sweat-
shop labor and the College
Licensing Company code. A
few comments are in order.
The CLC code applies to
over 160 American universi-
ties and does not just apply to
our Nike contract. Currently,
the code will not end sweat-
shops because it lacks a local
livingswage and full public
Companies can pay starva-
tion wages in hidden factories.
U of M should reject the CLC
code in its current form in
favor of something with teeth.
Most people don't want their
clothes made in sweatshops.
With a little work, we can put
an end to sweatshops. Any stu-
dents or student groups that
wants to help end sweatshops
can contact SOLE at
research is
Author George Bernard
Shaw once said, "Those who
won't hesitate to vivisect won't
hesitate to lie about it as well"
Moreover, Charles Anderegg,
who received an M.D. and
Ph.D. from Yale University
School of Medicine in 1987,
explained, "It is impossible to
predict human reactions to
drugs, vaccines and other
chemicals by testing them on
animals' Therefore, any claim
put forth by the animal
research community regarding
the value of vivisection is pure,
unadulterated duplicity.
As you read this letter, a
formula for making animal-
derived research relevant to
humans is non-existent. And
without an extrapolative co-
efficient, all animal research
protocols are wasteful, use-
less and fraudulent.
Plus, since animal
researchers are not even
human doctors, every ounce of
their vivisection data can easily
be quashed. The anatomical,
physiological, immunological
and histological differences
between the human animal and
the non-human animal are too
great to overcome. Still, ani-
mal researchers remain obdu-
rate and unwilling to use the
following 10 forms of true sci-
entific research techniques:
human-based clinical
epidemiology (the
study of human populations)
rl~fl or ani r.nlanulr

However, in spite of the
animal research community's
false claims, more than 25
charities - Easter Seals,
American Kidney Fund and
International Eye Foundation,
to name a few - now refuse
to perform or fund animal
experiments. And with scien-
tifically sound organizations
comprised of M.D.s and Ph.D.s
like The Physicians Committee
for Responsible Medicine, The
Nature of Wellness and The
Medical Research
Modernization Committee,
vivisection's fiery lie will soon
be extinguished.
Society needs to stand up,
execute justice and rip the
sheath of impunity from the
animal researchers who
haven't a wisp of compassion
nor a drop of remorse for their
mendacious, merciless and
wanton acts.
have no right
to inform
I was outraged on Tuesday
while reading the article
"Some universities opt to
inform parents of MIPs"
(12/8/98). If the student
involved is over 18, therefore
legally an adult, no university
has any business informing
anyone of the charge. This is a
blatant disregard of the privacy
rights of the student.
The drinking charge is in
no way connected with the
university, and the informing
process is nothing more than
intrusive moralizing of the
administration. We, as students
and people entitled to our pri-
vacy, should not stand for such
a violation of our rights. I urge
the Daily's readers to write to
their congressional representa-
tive and express your displea-
sure at the Family Education
Rights Privacy Act.
box was
In regards to the article
"Education or legal enforce-
ment?" on Nov. 30, I was
rather put off by one of the
"Drinking truths" - "A
woman should not have more
than two or three drinks a
day." Does this imply that a
man can drink as much as he
want per day? What-if the
woman is pregnant? Does the
two or three rule apply to
her? If the Daily wants to

semester is upon us, we have
begun evaluating our profes-
sors with the General Teaching
Questionnaire. This is one of
the most poorly written teacher
evaluation forms I have ever
seen. Anyone who has ever
taken an entry-level marketing
class should be appalled at
how biased the questionnaires
are. Examples include "overall,
this was an excellent course,"
"excellent teacher," "I learned
a great deal,' "great amount of
substantive material,' "made
me think deeply,""my case-
book was excellent,' "the
instructor seemed well pre-
pared." The answers to the
questions can't possibly reveal
anything about the quality of
our professors. For example, if
I thought the professor was
good, but not "excellent," I
would have to answer "dis-
agree" to the question and it
would make it seem like he
was poor, when in reality, he
was good. But most students
wouldn't do that to a professor
they liked so they would fill in
"agree," which is basically say-
ing he was excellent. By not
starting from a neutral base-
line, the questions are automat-
ically skewed toward answers
of "agree" or "strongly agree."
This does not lead to useful

lots of fun. "You ELDRIDGE
dummy, no one's So
going to die," I once S. -FN
said, greeted by an
unconvinced stare before being instruct-
ed by a lunch partner that leaving town
was a good idea anyway, "just to be safe."
The confusion provided perfect small
talk fodder and lots of needless worry. It
was the harmless chaos we all love.
An equally good rumor floated
around last spring. Word had it that
Monica Lewinsky would be entering the
University's M.B.A. program. My eyes
lit up every time I heard this story, and
for awhile, we all pondered the prospect
very seriously - again, especially at the
Daily, where we're always hard up for
interesting things to write about.
I was thinking about Monica a couple
days ago, and about poor, dumb Daniel
Granger. Leading figures in two of
America's biggest sex scandals slipped
through the University's fingers, one of
them in reality, the other in our collec-
tive imagination.
This is a crying shame. Plenty of silly
"Real World" cast members are affiliat-
ed with the University, but they stopped
cutting the muster a long time ago.
Drew Henson has a high profile, but
consensusaindicates he's too nice and
smart to raise a ruckus.
I want Dan and Monica to come here.
I want the tabloid press. I want hyper
throngs. I want controversy. I want a lot
of things out of life. But most of all, I
want them to find each other.
Because Dan and Monica belong
They are both pestered by love - that
much is clear. The beautiful snapshots
of Monica in Vanity Fair.., red shiny
lips... happy white teeth... the teased
black hair... she's serious and light- *
hearted, wholesome and coquettish, a
modern-day Mona Lisa in a beret and
blue cocktail dress.
Some guys don't like her; they say
she's too chunky; I say, nobody's per-
fect, and when you hear Monica's heart-
broken voice on the Linda Tripp tapes,
hear about the romance gone wrong, the
hopeful young woman tossed aside by
the leader of the free world, you're left
wishing her the best, because all she
ever wanted was a cool boyfriend.
Daniel Granger is just the boy to love
her. The Grosse Pointe statutory rapist
needs the attention of a good woman.
The 14-year-old babes may have been
good for kicks, but it's time for a real
girlfriend. I hope Dan realizes it.
He has moved up in the world. Dan is
not the same, simple guy who unleashed
his private parts in the high school year-
book. Today, he's the confident young
man who gives belligerent jailhouse *
interviews to CBS News. Nonetheless,
the cleft on his chin reflects the chasm
in his heart.
There are numerous reasons why Dan
and Monica make a good match:
Their recent relationships are marked
by serious age differences. This must end.
Dan shares Clinton's arrogance and
shamelessness, but he's younger.
Meanwhile, Monica is more mature than
the 14-year-olds: She reads Walt Whitman 0
and hangs out with Vernon Jordan.
They have both been shamed in the
national spotlight. Dan and Monica
need people who can relate to their
unique plight. They need privacy and an
understanding ear.
If they don't want privacy, they
could make a small fortune on thelec-
ture circuit or by marketing their honey-
moon video.
Both of them seem smart and .
ambitious. There's always hope for the
future. If Bill and Hillary can bounce%
back from all of these setbacks, so can
Dan and Monica.
Their ambitions seem boundless, and

the White House might be theirs for the
taking. A recent poll showed Dan bare-
ly trailing Eugene McCarthy for the
1972 Democratic nomination, 40 per-
cent to 37 percent. Snagging Monica
could be the clincher.
They may be reluctant. They may be
shy. But if they spent a little time talking
to me, I could change their minds. I am
very persuasive. We'd settle in for beer
and cigars. Within an hour, I could con-
vince them that all the golf courses in



column was
I am writing in response to
Sarah Lockyer's column on
Dec. 8 ("The 20-something
guy is not all that bad, just ask
Susan and Sarah"). After read-
ing Lockyer's opinion of me
and my male friends, I must
say that I am greatly disap-
pointed. This column was
nothing but slander against
every male at the University.
Lockyer's argument is contra-
dictory, poorly thought out and
a waste of newspaper space.
Lockyer's contradiction
occurs at the end of her tirade.
She suggests that women at
Michigan would benefit from,
"... turning the tables and
using (men's) worth for (their)
whimsy." What I fail to under-
stand is how Lockyer can
defend this outrageous com-
ment. Is she not suggesting
that women should be every-
thing that she disapproves of in
men? If she is, and it appears
to be so, she is merely proving
how irrational she is. A ratio-
nal person would look to
improve a situation that she
believes has a problem.
Lockyer does not suggest a
solution. Instead, she simply
explains a method in which.
women can prove they are just
as inconsiderate and immature
as she claims men to be. An
intelligent person learns from
other's mistakes, they do not

Back to Top

© 2024 Regents of the University of Michigan