4 - The Michigan Daily - Friday, April 9, 1999

U9lie id jigrnafig

Wonder, 'Have I done enough? 'and then try to

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

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.

Money mnaement
Athletic Department raises spending concerns

stood in an Upper East Side bar in New
York City, surrounded by people who
shared the experience of having been total-
ly immersed in the institution that is The
Michigan Daily. One of the youngest peo-
ple in the room, I
watched a reunion of
a group of which I am
still a part, marvel-
ling at how these
bonds will tie us for-T
ever together.
All I could wonder<
was if I had done'
enough to appreciate
the gift I'd been
given.
In college, we live Megan
in a world of amazing Schimpf
opportunity, especial- PeS
ly in a setting such as
this university. We are encouraged to exper-
iment and explore while interacting with
future leaders and experimenters. Despite
our fundamental differences, we have not
yet become as inaccessible to the other side
as one day we will be.
It is an unequalled opportunity. Have we
done enough with it?
Rarely are we able to fully appreciate the
importance of things, experiences and peo-
ple in our lives while we can still do some-
thing about it.
One step removed from the hustle I was
caught up in for four years, I look around
and realize how many things and people
have moved on - me among them - in
that time, while campus events and trends
remain generally the same. I tackle new
challenges and watch my friends do the
same at their new jobs and lives. I marvel at
how far we have come since we saw each
other daily.

I have been fortunate enough to gain that
perspective. It makes me wonder more, did
I do enough? Can you ever?
Unlike many who write teary farewells, I
am not leaving Ann Arbor in a couple
weeks. I am not yet graduating. But, like
them, I am moving on to a new stage, where
treasured parts of myself like the Daily will
no longer play a constant role. Yet the
lessons will forever shape me.
One of my professors told me that my
long days and nights as a Daily news editor
would serve me well in medicine. I stared at
him blankly. Now I am regularly amazed at
how right he was.
I know that my deadline personality and
my ability to cope with a million things at
once were carved out of what succeeds in
a newsroom. I know I am able to ask
strangers any question without cringing
because it was my job. I know I have a
tenacity characteristic of a reporter track-
ing down a story. I know that I learned to
write and edit under the watchful tutorial
of those before me. I know that clear and
concise are better in the end, yet more dif-
ficult in the process. I know I was forced
to be the boss in good and bad times, and
I know the perils of hierarchy over one's
peers. I know the intrinsic value of histo-
ry's precedent and the weight of almost
110 years of tradition.
I can only hope I have given back a frac-
tion of what has been given to me.
I can only wonder if I did enough while I
was there. And while I can leave physically,
I can never leave emotionally.
People leave this building with new and
bigger things ahead of them, as I do, but
the incredible thing is that they never for-
get how being in this building prepared
them for that future. One of my co-editors,
after a particularly emotionally searing

night, said that we would never again work
in a place like this. We must understand
and know all that happens and all those
who make it happen at the University, at
once an awesome responsibility and fan-
tastic opportunity.
In doing so, we surrender a part of our-
selves to the institution. We forge deep rela-
tionships with people who also walked in
and couldn't leave. We yell and argue with
the passion that brings us here and then
kick back long after hours and talk and
laugh until the sun comes up. We spend our
time off with those same people on road
trips and at parties. We share memories
richer than most roommates'. We cry, create
and grow up together.
It is at its least a job. In retrospect, we
should consider it an honor.
Not everyone at the University of
Michigan has this experience. But for any-
one who let themselves become engulfed
by something larger than themselves, the
common threads are there and will always
be. This is what all students should be
required to have, for it is the part of "col-
lege" we treasure and that shapes us. It is
intense, exhilarating and preciously short.
The memories will be vivid and comforting
in the big, chilly world.
With this last word, I complete a six-year
road with The Michigan Daily. I look
around me at the empty office and see all
the times and the people who were part of
the noise, the commotion and the images.
The sensation is surreal.
When I leave tonight, I too walk into the
shadows, into the ranks of memories and
tradition. I become a byline in the dusty
volumes, one more ghost watching from the
attic.
Megan Schimpf can be reached over
e-mail at mschimpf&dumich.edu.
YR I N D INR TE B

In the age of Internet technology, the
University Athletic Department had the
opportunity to become an Internet service
provider in addition to having its own Web
browser. After having spent $300,000 to
explore this idea, the University Athletic
Department abruptly decided not to pursue
the project any further, instead choosing to
heavily redesign its Website, mgoblue.com.
The Athletic Department, being financially
independent of the University, needs to be
cautious in its ventures to ensure that money
is well spent.
For about $2 million, the University could
have formed a partnership with UniverseONE
- a company that specializes in online devel-
opment. Subscribers to this service would
have received Internet access, in addition to
the live coverage of sporting events and other
perks currently available in the Website's pre-
mium content area, called the M-Zone.
Moreover, instead of using Netscape
Navigator or Microsoft Internet Explorer, fans
would have used a new, University-themed
browser. Such a move apparently would have
allowed the Athletic Department to generate
additional revenue.
The reasons as to why negotiations broke
off between the two sides remain unclear. But
it is known that the Athletic Department spent
more than $300,000 in investigating this part-
nership - a high price to pay for no results.
The University has launched a probe into
this affair. According to Robert Kasdin, the
committee's chair and the University's chief
financial officer, "We need to ensure that our

athletic department is financially sound over
the long term." This probe should benefit all
involved as long as the University keeps its
focus on making sure that the Athletic
Department does its job managing money.
The probe should not be a spearhead for the
University to gain a measure of control over
the Athletic Department. Connecting the
department - and its funding - too closely
with the rest of the University could have
undesirable effects, including tuition raises.
That the Athletic Department is looking
for new sources of additional revenue bodes
well for student athletes and fans. Increased
financing can benefit athletes in both club
sports and varsity programs. With greater
funding, more club sports could receive varsi-
ty status - as illustrated with the recent addi-
tion of men's soccer and women's water polo
as varsity sports. Also, the department could
use the money to improve existing facilities
and upgrade equipment.
But the department must use caution in its
ventures. It is part of a public university, not a
corporation. No imprudent spending should
occur, and the department should not enter
into any venture that damages the integrity
and tradition of Michigan athletics.
New sources of finance for the Athletic
Department would be beneficial for
University sports as long as the sources of
income are sound. Although details of this
specific instance remain unclear, the Athletic
Department needs to ensure that in the future
the money it spends will benefit the
University.

CHIP CULLEN


f 5 G m 0 I 3 fW E

d/

-''


Funding threat
U.S. Supreme Court to decide on student fees

F or years college campuses have provided
open forums for various and often con-
flicting political views. Most students find
that exposure to a wide array of voices -
expressed through student organizations -
tends to enhance their undergraduate experi-
ences. But three law students at the University
of Wisconsin at Madison disagree. In April,
1996, Scott Southworth, along with two other
fellow law students, filed a suit against the
school's board of regents in which they
alleged that the use of their student govern-
ment fees to fund student groups violated
their First Amendment rights. The three stu-
dents compiled a list of 18 organizations that
they claimed conflicted with their own self-
proclaimed conservative Christian ideologies.
Since then, two separate federal courts have
ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, prompting the
board of regents to refund the students' fees.
The case, Board of Regents of the University
of Wisconsin v. Southworth, will be heard by
the Supreme Court next fall.
Given the fact that only $15 of the $166
student fees at Wisconsin per semester are
actually allocated to fund student groups (the
rest of the money goes to student services
such free bus passes for all students), it seems
apparent that the students' real motivations are
not financial but political - precisely the
kind of partisan grandstanding that their suit
challenges in the first place. Among the orga-
nizations on Southworth's hit-list are the
National Organization of Women, a gay rights
activism group and an environmental lobby-
ing group whom he described as "the scary
kind of environmentalists." While it may be
difficult to understand why Southworth feels
himself threatened by this "scary" lobbying
group, he has offered his own righteous justi-
fication for his attack on student groups: "It is
the only thing we have to protect those who
are not in power." The use of such rhetoric to

organizations is offensive to those who are
fighting sincere battles for political and social
equality.
Rather than trying to sabotage the efforts
of other students to make their voices heard,
Southworth might direct his energies into
using the very First Amendment right he
claims has been violated by forming his own
group to provide an opposition to those with
whom he disagrees. Nobody is claiming that
Southworth and his co-plaintiffs don't have a
right to their own opinions - by funding stu-
dent groups, the University of Wisconsin is in
fact encouraging political discourse among its
students - but by attempting to hinder the
efforts of students to form organizations
(which is their First Amendment right), they
are in fact trying to inhibit the free exchange
of ideas that makes college campuses such
vibrant features of our national political life.
It might be objected that students may
form whatever groups they like, but not with
other students' money. The fact is that student
government coffers are the ideal financial
resource for student organizations. As long as
there is no discrimination in the allocation
process itself, the University of Wisconsin
student government is doing its entire campus
a service by allowing students to express their
beliefs. If these funds were removed, only the
political causes that could raise enough
money would be able to exist. Then, perhaps,
Southworth would find out who "those who
are not in power" really are; it would seem that
in such a scenario, environmental groups
would cease to be as "scary" as Southworth
thinks they are. By attempting to cut off the
student government funding for these organi-
zations, Southworth is not protecting but sup-
pressing First Amendment rights. It would
benefit the University of Wisconsin and col-
lege campuses nationwide if Scott
Southworth and his friends would wait until

POWs should not
inspire hatred
of Serbs
TD THE DAILY:
It is with extreme disgust that I must
take pen to paper and write this letter, and
say what by far will be considered improp-
er by my peers. None the less it must be
stated that those soldiers who were captured
in Yugoslavia and are presently prisoners
should not receive our sympathy.
As a nation we must withstand the care-
fully planned attempts by the media and the
government to use this situation as a tool to
inspire hatred in the American people. You
see there is a secret that the government, the
media, those who we trust to tell the truth
do not want us to know.
In a democracy to really fight a war
effectively you need to hate your opponent,
and if that hate does not exist it must be cre-
ated. Three soldiers being taken prisoner is
a part of war, a sad part, but none the less a
part of war. What we are in now is a war and
if as a nation we do not feel the cause is
worth this price then we should pull out of
this war.
But if we feel that it is right, then we
must straighten our backs, harden our
hearts and accept that people from our own
communities will pay the price with their
lives for that cause. But false sentimentality
about how "our boys" have been captured is
the wrong response to this situation - they
are neither boys nor worthy of sympathy.
They are soldiers, trained professional
murderers, for war is one nation sanctioning
the killing of another nations population.
Merely because our nation authorizes this
does not make those pulling the triggers
exempt from the crime of murder, it simply
means that we will not punish them for it. It
is time for us as a nation to bow our heads
and continue on with our war not merely for
vengeance because three soldiers from our
armed forces were taken prisoner. To wage
war and destroy another nation and another
people is the ultimate act one nation can
carry out; do not condone it being done
merely for vengeance.
I am sad that once again this nation has
plunged into war, but I believe the cause is
worthy, worthy enough I would trade my
life to end what is happening in Serbia. But
I will not condone this nation going to war
merely for revenge because we have lost
soldiers as POWs. Oh, and one more thing,
do not listen to the news when they talk
about the Geneva convention. The United
States has ignored that treaty for years on
most counts and most nations no longer fol-
low it. It is only trotted out when a country
wants to cloak their war in false nobility.
EDWARD CHUSID
LSA SENIOR
Book review did not
delve into author's
deeper themes

7Tt BOX OFFICE
MENACE
kI

r
i. OC


I

Fe4
qA

&f . 9 . -4 -T

CAQ tt1 t AA u .a,.{


movie producer turned music agent, a more
sensitive reading reveals that in this book
Leonard is talking to the audience about the
experience of being an author.
When the protagonist, Chili Palmer, is
asked how he writesga plot, he responds that
"You find some fascinating characters, and
let them tell you the story." This is not mere-
ly filler text, but Leonard talking to his fans
and studentsabout the act of writing.
Nearly everyone in the book who dis-
covers that Palmer is making a movie
immediately asks, "Can I be in it?" Surely
Leonard is doing more than wasting text by
including these constant nagging inquiries.
He's talking to people in his own life -
fans who continually whine for mention in
one of his books. It's meaningful to note the
none of the "cool" people in the book ever
ask to be in the movie; they are characters in.
their own right and don't need special atten-
tion. They get roles because of who they are
- not from whom they ask for favors.
Leonard airs a lot of laundry in "Be
Cool," and it astonishes me that Barrett
missed all of it. Chili provides a voice for
Leonard to talk about not just his creative
process, but also the movie industry. Two of
Leonard's books have been produced on the
big screen. The first, "Get Shorty" was a
success because it left the plot and dialogue
(Leonard's trademarks) mostly intact. The
second, "Rum Punch" which was renamed
"Jackie Brown" and significantly rewritten
by Quentin Tarentino, flopped at the theatre.
I have to wonder how Barrett missed this
key point when he glazed over the fact that
the protagonist has had a hit "Get Shorty"
and a flop "Get Lost," and is now working
on a third. For the volume of text that
Leonard spends lambasting screenwriters,
the educated reader has to look for some
meaning or intent more subtle than lack of
artistic ability. There is a message to
Tarentino and others who would "improve"
a successful book for the big screen: don't.
In short, the connections to the real
world in "Be Cool" are too many and too
obvious to be mere coincidence. I have been
waiting for a reviewer in the popular press
to pick up on these obvious parallels, but to
my knowledge, none has. Even Rolling
Stone merely spent a column whining
about inaccuracies in the portrayal of the
music industry. I had hoped that a review
by the Daily might be more substantial than
a generic "soda-pop" summary, but I guess

Eating meat has
serious implications
TO THE DAILY:
Branden Sanz's April 6 column ("Meat -
It's not just for breakfast anymore") was so
ripe with ignorance, erroneous information
and poorly conceived justifications for eating
meat that I hardly know where to begin. Even
disregarding obvious errors like his insistence
that he is a carnivore (he is, in fact, an omni-
vore), the fallacies of his claims are glaring to
those of us who have educated ourselves
about the implications of eating animals.
Sanz first justifies his meat consump-
tion by appealing to a simplistic notion of
his "role in the food chain." He does not,
however, explain why he believes his role as
a human is similar to that of the carnivorous
tiger and not the vegetarian gorilla.
While I agree that Carol Adams
responded somewhat poorly when asked to
justify her belief that eating meat is morally
wrong, it does not follow that no such justi-
fications exist. When one examines the
ramifications of supporting the meat indus-
try by consuming animal products, a pre-
ponderance of evidence leads to the conclu-
sion that meat eating has profound moral
implications.
Is Sanz aware of the demands his prefer-
ence for meat places on fossil fuels, water,
topsoil and forest destruction when com-
pared with a vegan diet? Is he familiar with
the living and dying conditions experienced
in factory farms by the animals he eats?
Doubtful.
When it comes to his claims that eating
meat will allow him to have a "healthy, active
lifestyle," whereas vegetarianism would make
him frail or weak, there is simply too much
data to show that the exact opposite is true.
Part of the myth perpetuated by the meat
industry is that eating animals is invigorating,
healthy and essential. These are lies.
Humans can and do easily meet their
dietary needs eating a vegan diet. Further,
medical studies show that meat eaters have
dramatically higher incidences of cancer,
heart attack, heart disease and many other
illnesses. Never mind the high levels of
growth hormone, antibiotics and pesticides
we consume if we choose to eat animals.
I suggest Sanz read two excellent books
to augment his knowledge of animal con-

Ir

0