4 - The Michigan Daily - Wednesday, April 12, 2000 ob l Itrbgan &zil End of Exile: Into the arms of my zealous followers 420 Maynard Street Ann Arbor, MI 48109 daily. letters@umich.edu Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan MIKE SPAHN Editor in Chief EMILY ACHENBAUM 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. Draconian anti-rioting law targets students It has been more than a year since the riots at Michigan State University, but the state government has not finished overreacting. Let all college students be warned: The government is not going to take their "nonsense" any longer. But the real "nonsense" is Public Act 51 of 2000, an ill-conceived law that will target stu- dents and promote a faulty approach to crime and punishment. The new statute, recently signed into law, provides for an additional penalty for those convicted of involvement with rioting, unlawful assembly or civil disor- der on or near a public college campus. Beyond current measures, offenders will be banned from entering any public com- munity college, college or university campus for up to two years. Rioting is clearly unacceptable. Public safety demands some maintenance of order. But this is a non-issue since rioting is already illegal. The authorities have proven themselves all too willing to enforce current laws and have in fact been somewhat overzealous in doing so. What PA 51 does do is make the punish- ment unequal to the crime. If a lawbreak- er has already been sanctioned by fines or incarceration, there is no good advanced by depriving them of an educa- tion as well. There is another deplorable aspect to this bill in its malevolent attitude towards students. Since it only applies to unrest within 2,500 feet of a campus, students are being singled out. Is rioting in a resi- dential neighborhood or commercial area somehow preferable? Sen. Loren Bennett (R - Canton), the bill's sponsor, wants to "let people know that our society won't tolerate such hooliganism." It is certainly farfetched to imply that there is some kind of lenience towards student unrest and such a decidedly anti-student, anti- youth attitude has no place in lawmaking to begin with. Real questions exist as to whether P.A. 51 can be extended to penalize campus activism or civil disobedience. In addition to rioting, the act addresses "unlawful assembly or civil disorder." More importantly, a conviction is only necessary for "any offense that the court determines was directly related" to unlawful unrest. From the Civil Rights Movement to Vietnam War era protests, the voice of students on important issues and their willingness to go to jail for their views, has been a powerful statement of democratic values in a free society. Recent episodes at the Universi- ty, such the advocacy of the Worker Rights Consortium by the Students Organizing for Labor and Economic Equality, have clearly demonstrated the effectiveness that students can have in favor of worthy causes by challenging the status quo. The true crime in this instance would be if such activism were hindered or otherwise discouraged to combat "hooliganism." The logic behind this measure exposes the misguided approach of the penal system. As usual, the preference is for a punitive approach over efforts at rehabilitation. The idea that denying someone an education will in some way make them a more productive member of society is ridiculous. Since the ban only applies to public colleges, P.A. 51 also singles out poorer stu- dents; wealthy offenders will maintain the option of transferring to a private institution. The rioting that occurred at Michigan State was deplorable, but that is precisely why rioting is against the law. P.A. 51 does not address any public need and is fraught with adverse implications. As such, it simply a plain waste of the gov- ernment's time and the taxpayer's money. T here are many ways to go out. Check this one; you're gonna like it. If you've read the Daily columnists for a significant period of time, you know there are two ways people leave. Most write a nostalgic, weepy good-bye thanking everyone. The sec- ond group pretends it's not the last column at all - they write as they always do and then disappear like child actors nearing puberty. Tempting as each format is, I refuse to succumb. ,y. Instead, I make my summation. Ladies and gentle- men of the jury, I present you with the case for my column. There are a few David things you should Wallace know b'efore making your final considera- tion. I've written 35 May'n..d..° columns for this paper. I didn't plan to end on such a milestone number, but that's about the only thing I left to chance. I approached my column professionally and I want you to know the effort I put forth. To learn how to write a column, I read the best. Mitch Albom, Russell Baker, Dave Barry, Jim Murray and Mike Royko own the trade. They have a combined five Pulitzer Prizes, which is five more than me. All of these writers taught me about language, style and execution. They also imply that I'll never be as good as them, but I think they're just insecure. So, thinking about trying out for this spot? Want to know what I think about writing a col- umn? Trying to decide what Exile on Maynard St. was all about? All right then, listen up. For one, you've got to have a good name. "Exile on Maynard St."referenced the Rolling Stones and the Daily staff's work ethic. I like it, but there's no end to the number of good names. If I filled in for a colleague, I would have used "Utility Infielder." And if my col- umn's outlook were a tad more warped, then it would have been "Mashing Feces on the Padded Wall." But more important than a name, a column needs a consistent voice. My voice is in my word choice, my phrasings, my sense of humor and my perspective towards life. Regardless of the subject, these four defined me in every column. Don't mistake consistency for staleness, though. I treated my column as experimental to the end. I wrote about hard news - Elian Gonzalez and Tom Goss, for example - but I also had a conversation with October and per- sonified Hallmark Cards, Inc. I even blamed last spring's riots in East Lansing on Sparty. Hey, this is a college newspaper, and you're supposed to experiment in college. Isn't that what you were saying at Hash Bash a week and a half ago? Rhetorical questions bring me to another point. A column should sound conversational, not essay-like. It's a trap for columnists at every level, but if your columns and term papers sound the same, you're either writing bad columns or bad term papers. So I avoided the "essay column." I also never wrote the "a funny thing happened to me and my friend last Thursday column," a pernicious piece of tedium common on pages all across America. Every one of these columns should end, "I guess you had to be there." Furthermore, I never exploited my column to try to get a date, though I probably should have. You don't get to abuse a power like this everyday. I should have thought of this earlier. Oh well, it wouldn't have been appropriate on the editorial page. Page four is ground zero for politics. If you read my column regularly, you prob- ably noticed I hate politics. Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens - yuck. This doesn't mean I'm uninformed; on the contrary, I hate them precisely because I'm informed. But don't mistake me for an anar- chist; I simply don't believe we've had a polit- ical figure to look up to during my lifetime. This year's presidential candidates take the cliche. I'm not saying Bush and Gore are stu- pid, but if you put them on Celebrity Jeop- ardy! and let them play as a team, they'll still come in third behind Dharma and Greg and Donny and Marie. Let me exhale the bad and breathe in the good for a second. OK, now I'll wrap this up. My guiding principle, as I wrote in my first column, is that neither you nor I are much smarter than one another; conse- quently, I never needed to tell you what to think. My column sought to entertain you and provoke thought. If I took up a spare five min- utes of your time in the Fishbowl, or was your companion at a solitary lunch, I'm pretty happy with that. I really have nothing more to say, so I rest my case. Now, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I have but one request. This might be the last column I'll write at any level,'so I want the final verdict. Please send me an e-mail at davidmwCapumich.edu letting me know what you thought of the column. If you don't know me or if you know me well, tell me what you thought. If you loved it, I want to know. If you hated it, go ahead and hammer me. If you read Exile on Maynard St. regu- larly, occasionally or just this one time, tell me what you think. I'm giving the final word to you; I never played it safe, so there's no reason to start now. I'll consider this column a success if I get enough e-mail to crash my computer. With that, I yield the spotlight. - David Wallace can be reached via e-mail at davidmw@umich.edu. He thanks his family, friends and editors for their help and support. THOMAS KULJURGIS GET TO SEE6 MT IME CA1S ULft" Lt~. icE'... Stop legal murder Moratorium on executions is a good start n the last year or so, one of the most I eye-opening news stories has been that regarding the death penalty in Illi- nois. In January, Illinois Gov. George Ryan declared that capital punishment would be suspended there due to the number of death row inmates revealed to have been wrongfully convicted. One of those inmates would not have been discovered at all were it not for the efforts of a group of students from Northwestern University. Cases such as these show serious flaws in the administration of the death penalty - which is why three of the men who were recently released after erroneous death sentences have been lobbying for a federal moratorium on executions. The bill they support calls for a seven-year suspension of the penalty as well as access to DNA test- ing for death-row inmates. But while suspending capital punishment is a good idea, it would be even better to abolish it altogether. The example of Illinois, where 13 people have been released from death row since 1987, shows that the death penalty can be (and often is) adminis- tered wrongly and even recklessly. If a group of journalism students can prove the innocence of a condemned prisoner, why can't the police and the justice system do the same? The permanency of the death penalty makes the call to put a stay on execu- tions all the more urgent. It is not likely that the only people that could have ben- efited from DNA evidence are those death row prisoners whose convictions have been overturned recently. Given that condemned prisoners have been released at a rate of about one a year in Illinois, it is highly unlikely that the state has never executed an innocent person. While a person erroneously sentenced to life imprisonment can be released, some- one who has been executed wrongfully can never be compensated. The possibility of error is not the only flaw in the death penalty. There is a great deal of inequality in sentencing. black and Hispanic men have been sen- tenced to death disproportionately to white men for crimes of similar magni- tude. Those of a lower socioeconomic status are also far more likely' to be sentenced to death. The government should not continue to implement such a ridiculously biased practice - it is both ironic and alarming that a system intended to deliver justice should be so frequently racist or classist. Finally, the government should not be allowed to retain the death penalty because, in carrying out an execution, it is committing the same crime for which it claims to be delivering justice. It is wrong for an individual to commit murder, but that does not make it right when a state does the same. Congress should listen to the call for a seven-year moratorium on capital punishment, but ultimately the suspen- sion does not go far enough. The death penalty is morally wrong, poorly administered and offers absolutely no margin for error in sentencing. For these reasons, it should not only be suspended but abolished. Daycare, housing are not rights To THE DAILY: I am writing in response to Jennifer Mon- ahan's letter ("'U' needs to provide better ser- vices for women," 4/5/00). In her letter, she stated that, "the University does not protect the necessary rights of housing, health care and daycare for its students." What troubles me is that housing, healthcare and daycare are nothrights! Since the United States and the State of Michigan are capitalist and not socialist, every individual should be expected to support themselves and their own families through the opportunities available to them because of capitalism. The government, and therefore the Uni- versity, should have no part in providing housing, healthcare or daycare to its students beyond affordable dormitories. If one cannot afford to attend the University while rearing children, then they should have thought about that before having kids. Children are miracles and should not be brought into this world by those who cannot fulfill every aspect of par- enthood, including financial responsibility. If the government is expected to pick up par- ents' slack, ultimately everyone will pay for these children through taxes. And that, my friends, is the beginning of socialism. CHRISTINE BELL UNIVERSITY ALUMNUS Women should not have to fear rape To THE DAILY: In response to David Goodman's view- point ("Victims need to take steps to prevent sexual assault" 4/10/00), 1 argue that most women already do take numerous precau- tions in their lives in attempts to keep them- selves safe, from not walking alone at night, not dressing in certain ways, not going to the bathroom alone in public places, not consum- ing alcohol and drugs, not riding in elevators alone with men and just staying home a lot. It is not the "victim/survivor's behavior," as Goodman suggests, that determines whether an assault will occur, but solely the behavior of the perpetrator. No one wants or asks to be violated and there is no "behavior" that justi- fies assault. Goodman writes about the dangers of absolving the "victim/survivor" of responsi- bility and separating the person from the behavior, as she will then not learn her les- son, and "not feel responsible for the conse- quence of (her) actions." I argue that the converse is the real danger, that is, absolving perpetrators of their responsibility, exempli- fied by statements like, "boys will be boys" and "she was asking for it." You needn't worry about the "victim/survivor" skipping off scot-free, as she will doubtless be blamed by a myriad of people, including and espe- cially herself, though the assault was not her fault. She will feel the consequences of that action for the rest of her life. It is the perpe- trators who require reminders of their culpa- e c ° 9 1Apoir ' :r5tips3t 4d va:%^. herd." I take issue with this analogy, as I believe women are stronger and more capable than they are being given credit for, but also because it is illustrative of the paternalistic and condescending tone of Goodman's piece. After this statement, he goes on to write a ridiculous laundry list of do's and dont's for women who want to keep themselves safe, instructing women to "look before crossing the street. Wear reflective clothing when bicy- cling at night. Take an umbrella when the forecast calls for rain. Don't walk alone through unlit alleys until 3 a.m. on Saturday nights." Goodman, I don't know whether you believe that women are so low on the intellec- tual scale that they are not bright enough to protect themselves, or whether you just can- not understand what it is like to be a woman in a dangerous world. In either case, what I want to explain is that women already live in an extremely restrictive world, with so many places and activities off-limits because we worry about being victimized. In addition, because of the abhorrent nature of phenome- na like date and acquaintance rape, many women actually trust the men who wind up violating them in the worst ways. As a consequence, we spend days and nights wondering how to make ourselves, "less of a target." Should we stay home? Never go out on dates? Never go out to clubs or bars, and never drink or wear anything "provocative," for fear of "provoking" men to violence and rape? We women are already working overtime, as "eternal vigilance" has proven quite exhausting. We're doing our part and more. Now it's time for the silent men to start speaking up, telling their friends that it is not acceptable to keep pushing if she says, "no," or if she's too drunk to say anything. To not laugh and encourage their frat brother as he unbuttons his pants and jeers at the women passing by on the Take Back the Night march (which really happened). To lead by example- positive example, that is. As a survivor of sexual assault on this campus, I have to disagree with Goodman. I didn't "ask" to be assaulted and I will not accept blame. I wasn't scantily clad, drunk or walking alone at night and I resent the insinu- ation that if I had been, my assault might seem more excusable or justifiable. I was walking to class on well-populated South University Street at noon on a bright, sunny spring day. And that didn't stop him. It's time Voting bill PA 118 is undemocratic To THE DAILY: In response to Engineering sophomore Joseph Oravec's letter to the Daily ("Stop your whining, voting is easy," 4/6/2000) in support of Michigan Public Act 118, I must strongly disagree with his narrow point of view. First and foremost, PA 118, which requires voters to be registered at the address listed on the driver's license, undeniably puts obstacles in the way of college students who wish to vote. This is illegal, just like poll !axes and voting registration tests administered to black voters in the south until the '60s were illegal. Oravec uses similar arguments to those of the segregationists when, in his letter, he states that it is "lazy" not to jump over hurdles in order to attempt to exercise your basic civic duty. Changing ones driver's license address requires obtaining a new drivers license every year (assuming that college students change their place of residence yearly) an obstacle not demanded of other voters. Second, the laws of the cities in which they live affect students. By and large, col- lege students live in the cities in which they attend college for eight months or more of the year a clear majority of the 12-month calendar year. While their college address may not be legally considered their "per- manent address," it clearly is for all practi- cal purposes. Furthermore, by Oravec's rationale, anyone who is expected to live in any city for four years or less should not be allowed to vote there, because they're not part of the "permanent community." That is unconstitutional and illogical. Finally, I am disheartened to see that you think that groups like the ACLU are out to "destroy college communities." Groups like the ACLU and the Student Rights Commission of the Michigan Stu- dent Assembly build college communities by including the voices of students in the greater community and exist to fight for their rights and your rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America - rights that people try to take away from you and me each and every day. Unless we as students are vigilant, we might very well have them snatched from ) aI NO$ SEIA .JA S DIL T T-ju g s I N NS e m r o w 'M 'M E ? i E.SpTtt,. 0 0 " ark's t ii &A o3U r ,.1n, ,...r...um.,j [l liIl I 111111U 1A