4 - The Michigan Daily - Thursday, December 2, 1999 ti aloe luau g I'll take my criticism with a heaping dose of Prozac 0 420 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. Running on time Computerized bus signs would benefit students I can't concentrate on this column right now. Between colossal term papers, oral presen- tations and final exams, I barely have time to listen to the people who think the Daily is plotting a massive conspiracy against them. Actually, I won't have any time to conspire for the rest of the semester. Darn! If my professors were chari- table enough to with- hold my grades this semester, I would be forever grateful. Imagine - no grades. There would be no more struggling to beat the curve. I'd set- tle for some Jeffrey 'Residential College Kosseff written evaluations. While there is a certain S we et~ satisfaction to seeing New Style my success quantified, I experience greater disappointment from the quantification of failure. And this semester, my work shockingly is bound to be imperfect. Sure, I could handle written evaluations. The economics 401 curve shrunk my academ- ic ego two years ago. Now I could handle most criticism of my scholarship. To prove it, I'll go through the last written course evaluations I received: my elementary school report cards. I dug them out of my closet over Thanksgiving break. I haven't read them in ages, but I'm sure they all hit the nail on the head - that I was the ideal student. Let's start with first grade. Mrs. Thomas was my favorite teacher. She was an old woman who loved everyone - there wasn't a mean bone in her body. Let's see what good ol' Mrs. Thomas had to say about yours truly. "Jeflivv tries vervy hard to do his best, and he is progressing well ... Good, good. So far I have an "A" for effort. I love that woman. "although he is somewhat unsure about newIi situations." That senile old hag called me a recluse. I might not have been as outgoing as some of the dumb kids, but I wasn't "unsure" about anything. She was trying to create a self-ful- filling prophecy that would make me move to Wyoming and plan a takeover of the federal government. I had many disagreements with my second- grade teacher, Mrs. Sloan. But we respected each other, despite our differences. I'll bet she had some glowing remarks. "He has to stop rushing and making care- less errors. We also need to encourage him to be more organized." That was from the first quarter. I'm sure she grew to love me by the end of the school year. What did she have to write about me by the fourth quarter? "Jeff will do very well when he makes up his mind to really concentrate and do his best. I don't believe he is ready to make that com- mitmentvet." I should have made up my mind to tell that ice queen what I thought of her. She brought favoritism to a new level. She didn't like me because I didn't kiss her sorry ass. I bet her family collapsed "American Beauty" style. I hope she lost her teaching job and is now doing something that would have been beneath her - like cleaning houses. Maybe I'll hire her to clean my house in 10 years. And I'll have her make sure not to be careless. I didn't like third grade, so Miss Rogers probably hated me. She wasn't particularly bright, so I doubt she understood my genius. "Jefe enjoys participating in class dis- ciLssions. L[e is 1er' cooperative in class. I have enjoi'ed working with .Jefli'i' this yew:" Finally, here's a voice of reason. Miss Rogers had the keenest ability to judge talent and intelligence. If there were a Golden Apple for teachers, I'd nominate her. My fourth-grade teacher, Mr. Robinson, was too slow to be critical. "Jeffte continues to need to recheck writ- ten assignments frspelling errors. thorough- ness and neatness." He probably had one too many shots of vodka before writing that comment. Waht is he taalkingg abbout? I'"m metticulus when I proferead my work. Dumb drunkard! I earned all "A's" in fifth grade, so there's no reason why Mr. Braderman would give me a poor evaluation. "Jefrev needs to work on producing neater written assignments." What the hell is wrong with him? Sure, my penmanship might leave a bit to be desired. OK, it's barely legible, even today. But I was doing straight-A work, operating at a seventh- grade level in fifth grade. How dare he try to slow me down. He probably was jealous. Yeah, I bet they all envied me. As much as I don't want to admit it, many of these evaluations could apply to my school work this semester. My writing is horrendous, and I occasionally rush through assignments. On second thought, maybe written evalua- tions aren't so great. My ego is better equipped for letter grades. Although there are no marks, evaluations are painfully true. And too much truth hurts. One letter takes a lot less time to digest than hundreds of them. - Names offteachers have been changed to protect the incompetent. Jefrey Kosseff can be reached over e-mail at jkossetfj(umich.edu. GRINDING THE NIB Jniversity students have become accustomed to the advantages of the Internet, but did they ever think it might help them catch a bus? That's exactly what should happen if the University car- ries out its plan to install dot matrix indi- cator signs at bus stops across campus. The signs would connect to radio modems alerting both people waiting at the bus stop and those online when the buses would arrive at each bus stop. The entire University community would benefit from this. The system would provide increased safety. Students would no longer be forced to wait long periods of time at bus stops. With the new system, students could either check arrival times online or return inside after checking the signs at the bus stop. Because students would not have to wait outside, they would avoid both the dangers of traveling alone late at night and the threat of the cold. If the increase in student safety isn't reason enough to implement the new sys- tem, the added convenience it will pro- vide should further convince the University of its worth. Because students won't be waiting at the bus stop, they should be able to use their time more effectively. Also, under this plan, students will know if a bus has broken down or been delayed. This will help decrease the number of students arriving late for class when traveling by bus. The paper signs posted at bus stops are practically useless, because the buses rarely run exactly on schedule. As with any project, there are draw- backs to the implementation of a bus tracking system. One possible concern is the system's cost, which would be between $100,000 and $200,000. Still, the cost, which should be aided by University funds, is small relative to the vast benefits it would provide. Other concerns are pos- sible vandalism of dot matrix signs and the difficulties that may be encountered in ser- vicing the tracking system. Still, these possible drawbacks should not discourage the University from imple- menting this project. Vandalism is a threat with any new development, and it should not stop the University from trying pro- jects that benefit students. Difficulties in service can also be expected, but the University must be prepared to account for these problems as new technology develops. The University also must consider that the new bus-tracking system would help keep the University on the cutting edge of technology. The University prides itself on the implementation of technology in coursework. There is no reason the campus shouldn't adhere to the same technical standards that classes demand. With other universities like Ohio State already imple- menting bus-tracking systems, the University of Michigan cannot afford to fall behind. Considering the advantages the new bus- tracking system would provide to students and faculty, along with the high standard of technology it keeps at the University, this is a cost-effective policy. We think increased student safety and convenience is worth the relatively small costs. CHIP CULLEN The Michigan Daily welcomes letters from all of its readers. Letters from University stu- dents, faculty, staff and administrators will be given priority over others. All letters must include the writer's name, phone number, and school year or University affiliation. The Daily will not print any letter that cannot be verified. Ad hominem attacks will not be tolerated. Letters should be kept to approximately 300 words. The Michigan Daily reserves the right to edit for length, clarity and accuracy. Longer "viewpoints" may be arranged with an editor. Letters will be run according to order received and the amount of space available. Letters should be sent over e-mail to daihlleners@unmich.edu or mailed to the Daily at 420 Maynard St. Editors can be reached at 764-0552 or by sending e-mail to the above address. Letters e-mailed to the Daily will be given priority over those dropped off in person or sent via the U.S. Postal Service. VSLIKE CH 1CAGO ThT I LJHNT ARE YOU TA~LKING ABORT? 'yOU W5RN l- R6M FOR AN~OTHER TN YEAR~S! I Z , 1 t . r ! 1 Focus on public schools Chartering is not the answer MSA Student fee allocation is not democratic W hen a bill was introduced in the state House last May to raise the number of schools that can be chartered by state universities to 225 from the current 150, the bill thankfully stalled. It was passed by the House Education Committee but was never brought to a vote in full House because it lacked the votes to pass. Unfortunately, Gov. John Engler and the Republican leadership of the state legisla- ture are now pushing another bill aimed at expanding the number of schools universi- ties can charter. State House leaders have attempted to gain more support by only increasing the number of schools a university can charter by 50 now and then allowing another 25 next year. The bill also will create a five- person oversight board in an attempt to win support from legislators who have raised concerns over charter schools' lack of out- side scrutiny. This bill is a serious attack on the state's public schools and deserves the same fate as its predecessor. Charter schools are taxpayer-financed with none of the elected oversight and accountabili- ty required of public schools. Many of them also espouse highly questionable educational philosophies, such as instructing students in "morality" and using "traditional" curricula, those things being whatever the company running the charter school thinks they are. Many public schools in Michigan, which educate the vast majority of the state's students, are beset by significant problems, and funneling their funding into charter schools is a serious mistake. so bad that they have stripped the elected school board of its authority and handed it over to an unelected reform board. But they're also taking funds away from the system and sending them to unregulated, often for-profit, quasi-private charter schools. This raises questions about their motives and throws serious doubt on the state's commitment to improving public education in Detroit or anywhere else in the state. Besides siphoning money from already inadequately funded public schools, char- ter schools also operate with no elected oversight and little scrutiny from the state. Engler's proposed oversight board also would be unelected and will likely be just another state board stocked with his cronies. Given his own fervor for charter schools and lack of interest in any over- sight for them, there is little reason to believe Engler would place anyone on the board seriously interested in whether the schools are adequately educating students. Rather, it stands to reason that the board, like the governor, would mostly be con- cerned with defending and expanding charter schools. Charter schools, which have been her- alded by some as the first step in privatizing public education, harm Michigan's public schools and are detrimental to the education of most of its children. Charter schools are little more than private schools totally fund- ed with public money, free of the legal and constitutional guidelines adhered to by pub- lic schools and often operating on untested and highly dubious educational philoso- phies. This state already has too many char- When I read the Daily's editorial "Is Freedom worth $5.69?" (11/11/99) I was shocked by how the paper argued its case in support of student fees' legality and validity. The Daily obviously doesn't have its facts right when it assertively declares that "student activity fees are fair because MSA's funding process is democratic," referring to MSA's Budget and Priorities Committee's allocation of student fees to student groups here at the University. This is absolutely erroneous! What is so democratic about a bunch of selected stu- dents who choose what groups they decide deserve funding? Oh, yes, but wait, MSA defenders would cite the fact that the com- mittee claims to decide allocation of fund- ing based on the group's application and that vague term they define as "activeness and impact on campus." This is MSA's official line, but what it preaches and practices are two different things altogether. Since the Daily mentioned Students for Life in the editorial (because we received funding from MSA) in order to back up your claim of how equitable and just the system is, let me point out the many facts that the Daily ignored in its defense. First, you made no mention of the fact that at first Students for Life was only granted a measly $10 from MSA, while our opposition, Students for Choice and Medical Students for Choice, received $300 and $200 respectively. I admit SFL might not have "described" all our activi- ties in the detail MSA wanted, but this was because it was our very first time in the history of our group that we applied for funding. Needless to say we deserved more than a mere $10, the lowest of any MSA funded group. It was only after I made a strong complaint and promised to have SFL picket MSA meetings if this injustice wasn't corrected, that all of a sud- den, four days later at an appeals hearing, the committee members found it in their hearts to give us $150! Although we have accepted this amount for this semester, one has to ask does SFC and Medical SFC really deserve the amount they received in comparison with SFL? The answer is no, when one looks at the facts. According to SFC's Oct. 25 meeting notes "only the board members were there so the meeting was kind of short." In con- trast SFL's Oct. 26 meeting had well over 25 people in attendance and lasted a whole hour due to planning of our many upcom- ing events. Well, with that dearth of attendance at SFC meetings, what about the group's activities? On Oct. 21st SFC and Medical SFC presented a video and "discussion" or abortion before it was legalized. When six SFL members, including myself, showec up for this event we found that only e handful of SFC members were present. We almost outnumbered them! Yet, SFL's Tombstones for the Unborn" event on Oct 29th had almost 20 SFL members partici- pating throughout the day and we handec out hundreds of quarter sheets to students in the Diag. Our display of tombstones fot the 40,million babies aborted since Roe . Wade was seen by thousands of university students that day, including BPC chair Glen Roe who actually was amazed that SFL was so visible out in the Diag. Yet. Roe oversaw that SFC be given DOUBLE what SFL was given, even after the appear that I made describing this event and oth- ers like it! I'll let students decide for them- selves if MSA's funding process is truly democratic as evidenced by the outrageous allocation disparity between the two anti- life groups which have essentially done nothing to impact the campus with their funds, and SFL,.which has had to beg foi what it truly deserves based on MSA's owr criteria for allocating funds. - This viewpoint was written by LSA sophomore Andrew Shirvell. Current 'U' divestment process is inadequate. Contrary to the caption under my photo- graph on the front page of Tuesday's Daily, I did not "speak out against the University's investment in tobacco stocks." I explicitly stat- ed that I did not have a recommendation on that specific issue, and I ask that the Daily prominently display a retraction. As the body of the story correctly reported, I argued that the act of investing is not value free and that the University is not well-served by the present process that requires Regental action in order to begin official deliberation of such matters. How the University invests its endowment is, like it or not, an object lesson for the university community on how invest- ing is influenced by values. Decisions about investments are in fact not unrelated to anti- sweatshop and human rights policies, adopted by the University Board of Regents on the decision to divest." In so stating, the Administration takes a position about divest- ment that it thinks is obviously in support of our core missions. In view of the disgust for tobacco companies that was expressed by all those who spoke last night, it would seem that some people may consider universal disdain for business practices quite relevant to such a divestment decision. My point is not that the criterion is correct or incorrect, but that every position about investment policy is value- laden. The University has further character- ized the issue of divestment as an expression of "particular political opinions." That may or may not characterize the motives of some of those concerned, but it cer- tainly misconstrues the moral and ethical issues involved. Does the University maintain that, in gen- with a company, but we should not be afraid to discuss such questions for fear of "politiciz- ing" the University. It is an affront to the notion of faculty gov- ernance that it has taken more than two years since the Faculty Senate recommended divest- ment of tobacco stocks for the University to begin official deliberations about it. (Perhaps the faculty should take a lesson from their students and occupy the president's office.) This is not to say that the current ad hoc committee is not qualified to arrive at a recommendation. I am not suggesting that every company be scrutinized before a decision is made to invest in it, but, when an investment is challenged by members of our commrunity, there should be in place a preestablished set of criteria within- which such questions should be considered (as