100%

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

Share

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.

February 22, 1999 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1999-02-22

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

4A - The Michigan Daily - Monday, February 22, 1999

(1ije £t1rigan Da lg

The cash just keeps on flowing in Ann Arbor

420 Maynard Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
daily. letters@umich.edu
Edited and managed by
students at the
University of Michigan

HEATHER KAMINS
Editor in Chief
JEFFREY KOSSEFF
DAVID WALLACE
Editorial Page Editors

It is too expensive to live in Ann Arbor. If
you don't believe me, just take a trip to
the quaint neighboring town of Ypsi-tucky.
You will see that the prices on everything

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 food to clothing
than any prices you
will find in our chic,
cosmopolitan city.
People who live in
Ann Arbor must pay
$3.50 for a swallow
of coffee; we must
fork over $1.10 for a
vending machine
Coke; and we must
pay $49.99 plus tax
for a pair of Bivouac
socks. Meanwhile,
people in Ypsi-tucky
can buy all of these
things and still have
enough left over to
buy a new pair of
cowboy boots.

to music are lower

Shifting responsibility
Bollinger must carefully analyze Code

Scott
Hunter
Roll through
the Soul

American population. Newly indepen-
dent, we amble through life without the
wisdom of experience to guide us. Most
of us have spent our entire lives coasting
on the financial wings of our parents and
are too naive to know when we're being
ripped off.
And besides, half of us bill everything to
our parents, anyway, and don't care what
anything costs. These are usually the same
students who drive BMWs, Benzes and
Lexuses.
Proprietors of businesses know this and
that is why they set up shop in Ann Arbor.
We are nothing more than meal tickets to
them.
So, as a writer for a college newspaper, I
feel it is my obligation -- no, it is my duty
- to protect the student body from this
wanton disregard for our well being. That is
why I have compiled a handy-dandy list
below of all the people and places who are
financial vultures.
Of course, this is not an exhaustive
list; if you would like an exhaustive list,
you must contact Ann Arbor Mayor
Ingrid Sheldon directly and request a
register of all businesses in the Ann
Arbor area.
Student Housing - I am particularly
hostile toward these people. This is because
I have had to live in a central campus hovel
while at this University. In fact, just yester-
day, I turned on the faucet and the water
was yellow. I did not choose this hovel vol-
untarily, but it was the least expensive hovel
I could find. And I am not alone.
A note to the housing companies: If you
wish to charge a lot, take heed: (a) extermi-
nate (Unless they pay rent, insects are not
welcome in students' homes), (b) despite
what you may think, rotting trash does not
add to the decor of our halls.

The people who decide on tuition - Last
I heard, Michigan was the most expensive
public school in the entire country. (The
University Board of Regents have something
to be proud of.) As an in-state student, I had
never really thought too much about the
expense, but then one of my out-of-state
friends told me how much he paid in tuition.
All I have to say is: "Sucks to be you!"
Steve and Barry - -Now, I know what
you're saying: "Steve and Barry are on our
side. We buy one T-shirt, and they give us
five more absolutely free." True.
But when you consider that the chained-
up 12-year-old Honduran girls that sew T-
shirts in the basement of Steve and Barry's
make only pennies, it's pretty evident that
they're milking you, too. Sorry.
Party stores - In short, Ann Arbor
party stores are, well, um, unique. Where
else can you pick up a slice of pizza, get a
box of candy, do your laundry, activate your
cell phone/pager and get the latest copy of
"Big-Uns" all in one trip? And all while you
are shopping, you can get your groove on to
the latest Puff'Daddy hit steaming out of the
ghetto blaster.
But all the convenience and, um,
ambiance comes at a price. The guys that
run these places are taking home huge
checks. And the employees at Village
Corner are able to use all the profits to pay
for tattoos and nipple rings.
Ulrich's -- If you are reading this, Mr.
Ulrich, I hope that you are enjoying your
yacht and your Lambourghini.
There you have it: A quick reference
guide to Ann Arbor's priciest. Keep this in
your wallet and it'll save you countless dol-
lars. It's just about everything you'll need to
make your cash last all semester.
-Scott Hunter can be reached over
e-mail at sehunter@umich.edu.
GRINDING THE NIB

M any hoped it would be high noon
for the Code of Student Conduct
last Thursday at the University Board of
Regents meeting, when it was up for
review. Instead, the regents shifted final
responsibility for reforming the Code to
University President Lee Bollinger.
The regents made their decision based
on a recommendation by Vice President
for Student Affairs Maureen Hartford.
Under the recommendation, proposed
amendments will be thoroughly reviewed
by the Student Relations Committee of
the Senate Advisory Committee on
University Affairs, the faculty's govern-
ing body. After the review, the amend-
ment, along with a recommendation on
implementation, will be forwarded to
Bollinger, who will make the final deci-
sion on whether or not to adopt it.
Four independent reports produced by
the Office of Student Conflict Resolution,
MSA, an internal University review com-
mittee and an external review team com-
prised of distinguished academics recom-
mended reforms for the Code, and in
most cases these reforms are significant.
Each of the reports identified fundamen-
tal problems with the Code, including a
complete lack of awareness about the
Code on the part of students and faculty
and a lack of productive interaction
between the Code and other conduct poli-
cies throughout the University. Although
the reports confirmed the objections of
many of the Code's critics, the regents
shirked their responsibility to the
University community and forfeited their
chance to make immediate and necessary
changes to the Code.
Since Bollinger never publicly stated
his position on the Code, it is impossible
to determine whether it was wise for

board members to place the power to
redefine University policy regarding the
private actions of individual students into
the hands of one person. As a legal schol-
ar, Bollinger must seriously look at the
Code's obvious flaws and carefully ana-
lyze all proposed amendments with an
open mind while keeping students' rights
at the forefront of his decisions.
Although sound decisions on amend-
ments must be made, swift progress is
equally necessary. The Code is unaccept-
able in its present state. Basic precepts of
the American legal system, such as dou-
ble jeopardy and legal precedent, are
ignored under the Code. It would be a
great disservice to the University to allow
the Code to continue to operate much
longer in its present form. Everyone
involved in the amendment process must
work diligently. Until the Code is
changed, students' rights will continue to
be trampled. The regents' decision should
allow for the reformation process to go
significantly faster - changes are
expected by the next regents' meeting in
March.
Bollinger and everyone involved at the
lower levels of the amendment process
have a huge responsibility weighing upon
their shoulders. Thorough analysis bal-
anced with promptness must be applied at
every stage of the Code's reformation.
Sweeping changes must be made to the
Code in its present form if respect for stu-
dents' rights at Code hearings is to
become an actuality. There is also a
strong possibility that no change will cor-
rect any of the Code's fundamental flaws.
If this becomes apparent, Bollinger must
have the courage to abolish it. The Code
is not worth having if it cannot be made
perfect.

Let's face it, everyone: Here in Ann
Arbor, the powers-that-be are killing us
financially. And I am mad about it.
Mad, mad, mad.
Long ago, when I was a freshman, I
would walk past Bivouac, Ulrich's or any
other store that spits upon people of my
caste, and I would ask myself, "Why do
these businesses charge such high prices to
students - a group of people with no jobs
and no income?"
For a long time, this question perplexed
me. But after years of deep thought, I now
know why they charge so much. And I
will tell you exactly why: Because they
can.
Here's the reason:
We, as college students, are perhaps the
most financially stupid segment of the

CHIP CULLEN

Team needs.
support of fans

Expensive justice'
Engler should fund crime prevention

Crime doesn't pay, but it certainly costs
money. Gov. John Engler's budget
recommendation for the fiscal year 2000
has drawn criticism from polticians and cit-
izens alike who question the large increas-
es in prison funding and the relatively
small increases for education. It can be
argued that the budget proposal is appro-
priate - larger funds are necessary to sup-
port prison systems that are housing

more and more prisoners. But within
this rationale lies the problem that
increased corrections funding for
larger prisons does not equate
to less crime. Engler needs to
look into different ways to
allocate funds for crime
prevention.

4

funding for drug and alcohol rehabilita-
tion and prevention programs across the
state. A recent statistic from The Detroit
Free Press shows that four out of five
adults in prison committed crimes while
under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
Increasing the availability of drug and
alcohol programs across the state will cer-
tainly help decrease the number of crimes
committed. Furthermore,
Engler should allocate more
funds to education and reha-
bilitation programs for cur-
rent prisoners. Prisons do lit-
tle to prepare their residents
for life after prison. The
result is that prisoners go
back to what they already
know - crime. Increased
educational and reform pro-
grams in prisons would help lower the
crime rate by reducing the number of
repeat offenders.
In addition to rehabilitation programs,
Engler should look into other measures to pre-
vent crime such as new gun control laws and
putting more police on the streets. Although
the Brady Bill, which mandates a five-day
waiting period for the purchase of a handgun,
has done much to curb the use of guns in
crime, Engler would be wise to go even fur-
ther.
Funding to the Department of
Corrections would exceed funding to all
15 state universities combined under
Engler's proposal. A few years ago, about

TO THE DAILY:
I know this topic has been beaten to
death lately, but something needs to be said.
IMichigan State embarrassed us Thursday
night at Crisler Arena. I'm not talking about
our basketball team - they played a fine
game. I'm talking about the fans.
Throughout the game, the small number of
State fans made more noise than the entire
home crowd. The one exception was when
Mateen "Designated Driver" Cleaves got
slapped with a technical in the second half.
Granted, they have a better team to cheer for
this season, but we should be supporting
our team regardless of their record.
Also, I was ashamed to see so many fans
leave before the end of the game. I know
that unlike State, our fans have jobs and
classes to go to in the morning, but there's
no excuse for walking out on your team.
The marketing directors of the Athletic
Department have done a good job so far this
year trying to get more fan involvement at
basketball games, but more needs to be
done by next season. Cutting student ticket
prices and bringing the entire student sec-
tion closer to the floor would drastically
improve fan morale and help out the team.
Our team can't dominate every year. It's
time to stop being fair weathered and to
start showing our players some real support.
BOB STINCHCOMBE
LSA SOPHOMORE
Michigan basketball
fans should show
more spirit
TO THE DAILY:
We should all be ashamed and embar-
rased. There is no shame in losing to the No.
4 team in the country, but how could we be
shown up by opposing fans, especially
Michigan State fans, in our own building?
That's just downright sad, especially for the
Michigan faithful in the seventh row with the
paper bags on their heads. As fans in general,
we are a sorry bunch. Our football stadium is
the largest anywhere but isn't rated as one of
the toughest places to play. Our hockey fans
get credit, but are nowhere near the caliber of
Duke basketball or Florida football fans. And
basketball?
We cheer louder for free t-shirts and half-
time freak shows than for alley-oops and
blocked shots. Friday's Detroit Free Press even
ripped our student section's inablility to pro-
vide home court advantage (actually the State
game must have felt like a road game to the
players). The Athletic Department is working
to make Crisler Arena a more intimidating
atmosphere, but the real responsibility
belongs to us. As college students, our prima-
ry job is to be loud, obnoxious and vulgar, so
let's get out there and make some noise.
Michigan athletics have always been
among the NCAA's best and something to be
tremendously proud of. It's time that our fans

/KICIq DCA rrvg.,L
AN! MT6

letter from Benjamin Rousch ("Diversity
more than just race, gender," 2/16/99). I
would like to start off by saying I agree
wholeheartedly with his statement that
"there are many other components that
must contribute more to an individual's
life experience." Race and gender are
only two components of one's personal
history and identity. As one who studies
higher education, I would agree that
many other factors are important in mak-
ing decisions on admission. Concerning
the University, I think it is sad that so
many individuals are so ignorant of the
admissions process that they assume that
the color of a person's skin is a dominant
factor in admitting an individual to this
institution.
This institution, and many others,
account for many other factors besides
race and genderin making admissions
decisions. To assume that students of
color here at the University are only here
because of their skin color speaks to the
racism that plagues this society as a
whole. There is not a single student here
at the University who has not shown their
ability to compete in such an elite institu-
tion before they were admitted. In addi-
tion, other factors such as the high school
one attended, the curriculum one took,
the activities one participated in and
whether or not one's parents are alumni
are also considered in these decisions.
Certainly there are many other factors
that the admissions committee considers
when making decisions, but for some rea-
son race seems to disturb people the
most. Why? Is it fair to consider factors
that many qualified students of color and
non-students of color do not have access
to because of their socio-economic status
or that of their families? Why isn't the
Center for Individual Rights fighting
against the consideration of alumni status
in the admissions process, or any other
discriminating factor for that matter?
The fact of the matter is that there are
too many qualified students to accept
everyone who is in the top 10 or 5 percent
of their graduating classes to this institu-
tion. There are always some students that
are not going to be admitted. That's life. But
when you assume that those students who
are admitted are so solely because of the
color of their skin, you simply prove that

Second Amendment
has been severely
misinterpreted
TO THE DAILY:
This letter is a response to Tom
Litchford's letter to the Daily on Feb. 16
("Gun manufacturers 'not responsible'
for firearm deaths"). The people of this
country should sue the manufacturers of
firearms.
Too many people are killed due to the
ability of anyone in the country (with a
few exceptions) to own, legally or illegal-
ly, and carry a gun. Litchford writes that
more people in this country are killed in
car accidents than by guns, therefore rea-
soning that the automobile makers are
better targets for litigation that the gun
makers. While it is true that more people
are killed in car accidents, car accidents
are accidents.
Far more are killed by guns because
the shooter wanted to shoot and harm
them. The gun manufacturers are respon-
sibe for this because they provide the
means to kill. Automobile makers cannot
be held responsible for accidents.
That so many people are killed by
guns is due to the misuse of the Second
Amendment by pro-gun advocates. Much
of the Constitution is quite dated.
The Second Amendment was intended
to allow people to have and equip a
standing milita. Today, the National
Guard fulfills this duty. Pro-gun advo-
cates have suckered this country into
believing in the lie that everyone needs to
have a gun.
Litchford repeats the pro-gun mantra
that guns don't kill people, people kill
people.
While this is true, he leaves out the
second, and most important part of the
phrase, guns don't die, people die. How
civilized of a society can we be when we
consider one of our most basic and essen-
tial rights is the ability to own a gun, an
object whose sole purpose is to cause
harm to another, or instill the fear of
harm?
Every other nation with stricter gun
laws doesn't have the problem that we do,
all hpmc nn nn vvill ctanAnn0a not

0
0
0"

Engler can start
reforming corrections
funding by modifying the sentencing
laws that Michigan currently uses. In an
average month, about 1,000 people enter
Michigan prisons, and about 850 people
come out. The overall increase in the
prison population each month is due less
to the housing of more violent criminals
than it is to the accumulation of non-vio-
lent criminals serving longer sentences.
Although Engler cannot do much about
federal three-strike laws that keep low-
level offenders locked up too long, he
can reform the longer sentences and
mandatory minimum laws that result in
crowded state prisons. With about one-
third of prisoners having already served

m

01

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan