4 - The Michigan Daily - Friday, October 1, 1999 aI e £itgigtt Daig De opresso liber! Sue your way to a better society 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. 'Handling' the overflow? Broadcasting course ultimately hurts students used to think there was no such thing as a stupid lawsuit - only stupid people who file them. I used to think of silly lawsuits as one of society's worst ills, to be ranked right up there with gang violence, The Backstreet Boys, BAMN (not to be confused with Wham! - another tragedy) and fatt chicks in spandex. But k I was wrong. Time and closer examima- tion have taught me the error of my ways. f We, as Americans," should all rejoice at the lawsuit-happy society we have Branden become. Why, you ask? Well, gentle Sanz reader, let me explain Dropping how wecancureallof the H m er our problems through ________ this simple, innocuous process known as "the lawsuit." You've got problems, right? Hey, we all do. But they are not incurable. That guy in your history class thinks you're unattractive? It's nothing a lot of plastic surgery won't fix. You can't get that hot sorority girl to think you're cool enough to go out with? Ask her if she wants to go spend the weekend with you on your private yacht in Barbados. She'll think you're the coolest thing since they invented Parliament Lights. You're failing chemistry? Buy your professor a new car and watch how quick you pass. I know what you're thinking: "But all those things take money - a lot of it - which I don't have." Fear not. Continue read- ing, and let me show you to the Promised Land. You can have all the money you want, and this is where the lawsuit comes in. But you're thinking: "I don't have anyone to sue." That's just the point - you don't need to have a valid reason for filing a lawsuit these days. In fact, the more ridiculous it is, the better. There are just two simple rules you need to keep in mind: RULE ONE: There is no such thing as an accident. Anything unpleasant that ever hap- pens in your life is someone's fault. There is no such thing as "coincidence" an "Act of God," a "freak occurrence," or a "mistake." It is all part of a plot by The Man to keep you down. RULE TWO: Nothing is ever yiour fault. There is always someone else to blame- generally the richer, the better. There are no such things as "common sense" or "personal responsibility," as these are merely fictions created by a vast AmeriKKKan conspiracy to keep people with less talent and intelligence from having everything they want in life. But you can beat the system. These rules are failsafe, as at least one of them (and usu- ally both) will always be valid. Armed with this knowledge, you are now prepared to go out, do battle, and carve out your own little slice of the American Dream. I can hear your skeptical minds at work. Want proof? Let's examine some hypothetical situations and put this theory to the test. Example One: You decide to stop and get some coffee. Not blessed with the common sense God gave a horse's ass, you decide to immediately gulp it down. Upon finding the coffee is so hot it burns your mouth, you drop it in shock, thereby burning your crotch area as well. You sue the proprietor. Rule One in action: This was no accident. The coffee was too hot to drink immediately and was obviously intended to burn anyone who tried to do so. Rule Two in action: This was not your fault. The people at the restau- rant should have realized that you were stupid and warned you verbally as well as in writing that the coffee was too hot for immediate consumption. Example Two: You are a professor taking a vacation on a cruise ship, enjoying the evening when suddenly a cocktail served in a hollowed-out half coconut plummets from the upper decks like the asteroid in "Armageddon," smacking you in your unwary head and causing slight brain dam- age. You sue the cruise line. Rule One in action: This was not an acci- dent. The cruise line should have taken pre- cautions to keep the hollowed-out coconuts away from the railing, where they could be dropped on unsuspecting passengers. It is completely unimportant that a cocktail served in regular glass could also injure someone if dropped. Rule Two in action: It is not your fault that you should have known people drinking alcohol (as people on cruise ships tend to do) might have less-than-perfect motor skills, and as such might drop things. It was not your fault your vaunted education didn't impart the common sense to keep away from an area that might be hit from falling objects dropped by said intoxicated merry- makers. These are just a few of the many situa- tions where the lawsuit is the perfect vehicle for fighting back at - and profiting from - the system that has oppressed you for so long. Are you an athlete who got kicked off the team due to a DUI? Sue. Did one of your children get drunk and fall through a "too- wide" window? Sue, baby! So go on! Get out there! Drop your books, grab your cell- phones and call your lawyer! We can all join hands and sing together in a happy, perfect, Lawsuittopia. - Branden San: can be reached over e- mail at hammerhead@umich.edu. ~' n this large University, students often find themselves enrolled in massive lectures with hundreds of their fellow Wolverines. This year, students enrolled in Psychology 111 have a new way to get around classroom over- crowding. To provide the class to the 1,310 students enrolled, the University cable system is broadcasting the class this semester. This seems like a fine idea on the surface. But a look at its deeper implications reveals several disturbing problems. Only 600 students can actually see the lec- ture live. With the class on television, the amount of people who can see the lectures is doubled. Students who miss the lecture due to illness or other problems can catch up on what they may have missed. Televised lectures thus appear to help students a great deal. This seemingly perfect solution is in fact only a Band-Aid for a much more serious wound. By televising lectures, Psych. 111 is doing education at the University a great disservice. One of the most important parts of college life and learning is the social aspect. Lectures gather large numbers of students together to learn from a professor in person. Students who stay at home and watch their class on television miss out on this entirely. Additionally, they cannot talk with their pro- fessor or their fellow students. Asking ques- tions is a vital part of learning. Personal attention is key to education. In under-funded public schools, the blame for poor education is often placed on the ridicu- lously large class sizes. This holds true in col- lege as well. University students need person- al interaction with educators to optimize their learning experience. Gathered together with a professor in a single room, students can learn far more effectively. Students are not the only people hurt by televised lectures. Faculty and potential facul- ty take a blow. If 1,000 people can simply sit down and watch a professor on television, then why hire two professors to teach 500 stu- dents each? Professois are key contributors to the learning and research environment that makes the University a top-notch institution. Televising classes is an interesting but ulti- mately flawed experiment. Unless the University does something to contain the tide of students overflowing Psych. 111 and other popular classes, it may soon end up plummet- ing down the academic rankings. If the number of students enrolled in a class exceeds the ability of a single professor to teach them, then the University must do something other than allow the problem to grow. Televising a lecture only encourages the number of students enrolled to escalate fur- ther. Instead, the University should hire more professors to teach students in smaller, more manageable groups. If it is unwilling to do this, then it must simply buckle down and cut off the number of students it will allow to enroll. Either one of these alternative solu- tions, or a combination of the two, would go a long way towards rectifying the currently unacceptable situation. Anything that compromises the University's ability to educate must be avoid- ed. Televising lectures degrades the quality of classes. The administration must find a better solution to overcrowding, or else students will quickly find they are no longer receiving what they came here for - quality education. 0 THOMAS KULJURGIS T1:NTkTI:..Y SPEAKING' I REPARING E)(4x TEIX OF I1"E G OUIS'P IDL E.1 Explicit behavior Student-teacher romances damage entire 'U' I n a university setting, relationships between students and teachers occa- sionally occur. But the question of what should be done about these relationships remains to be answered. Apparently, the University feels that it should have some say in the resolution of this problem. The Senate Advisory Committee on University Affairs met recently to consider revising its position on teacher-student relationships. Although no formal resolution was reached, the University frowns on the practice of teacher-student relationships - and it should. Relationships between students and teachers are ultimately detri- mental to the classroom environment and to the University image, and it's up to stu- dents and staff to make sure they do not occur. While the University looks down on relationships between students and teach- ers, it does not prohibit them, nor should it. The University is an academic institu- tion, not a parent, and personal decisions should be left to students. But the University community expects students and staff to realize the negative effects such relationships can have. While a college' classroom environ- ment is certainly different from a high school learning situation, students and teachers are still far from equals. College professors and GSIs may be encouraged to meet outside of class and discuss mate- rial in-depth, but at the end of the semes- ter, the teacher still has to give the student a grade. lows. Other students may feel uncomfort- able in a class where one student is made a favorite. Furthermore, judgement may be clouded when it comes time for the teacher to evaluate the student's perfor- mance. By commencing in relationships, teachers and students disrupt the quality and process of education at the University. But far from simply hurting one class, these relationships can have further nega- tive effects. Teachers and students must consider the possibility of their relation- ships becoming public knowledge. After word of a teacher student rela- tionship becomes public, the possibilities of damage are almost limitless. It may lead to conflict within the teachers staff, which diminishes the quality of educa- tion. It may tarnish the University's pub- lic image, leading to a decrease in fund- ing. Whatever the effects may be, it is clearly safe to say that they won't be pos- itive. Despite the negative effects teacher- student relationships pose, the University is showing a certain respect for students and teachers by not placing more empha- sis on the problem. They are leaving the decision up to students and faculty to make sure that these relationships don't occur. After all, any penalties the University might impose would pale in comparison to the problems such a relationship would bring on multiple scales. Students and teachers should acknowledge the result- ing ripple effect of their actions reaches Popularity of sports varies due to excitement TO THE DAILY: I am writing in response to the editorial which said that women's sports should get just as much fan support as men's sports because the athletes work just as hard and the teams are often successful ("In the lime- light," 9/29/99). Since when does hard work and practice give you the "right" to equal support from fans? If they have a right to the support then the University should implement quotas on minimum fans and we should all be fined for violating their rights. Why are students supposed to support women's sports or any sport for that matter based on how hard they work and their record? While I am not arguing that these athletes don't deserve respect, I think there is a difference between respecting some- thing and wanting to watch it. I have plenty of respect for men's and women's swim- ming and track, but I have no desire to go watch them and neither do most people. That is why few people are there. You also stated that people should go to softball games instead of baseball games because the baseball program has struggled with the exception of last year. Do you think fans should abandon teams if they aren't award winning? Don't these players still work hard and "juggle the same tough schedules"? While I hope for the best for all sports at Michigan, I will, and I suspect most people will, continue to actively support sports teams based on what we find the most excit- ing and fun to watch - not on how hard the players practice or because some editorial told us to do so. ANDREW HAMM LSA SENIOR Student careerism takes precedent over altruism TO THE DAILY: I am frustrated. I just got back from the career fair on North Campus and it was a feeding frenzy. Yes, blood, rather money was in the water and there were about a thousand ready and able sharks taking part. Recently, I found myself reevaluating my career choices. Why do I want to be an engineer, what is the social benefit? I don't know, who do I really help making Cheerios? For the most part, engineers spend their time making the rich richer. I am not asking anyone to shut down North Campus because there is a lot of worthwhile stuff going on up there. Students are too money driven, though. I frequently ask why there is so much competition; the usual answer is, "I want to get into the best com- pany or law school." Translation: they want the most prestige and money when they coraduaite ). k.. r_: - Z'6 Everyone can volunteer in some form or another. If you go to the University's Website (ww unmich.edu/-volunteer), there are hundreds of ways that you can do some- thing about it. I promise that once you do one good thing for a community, you will want to do another, and another, and anoth- er. But if this school continues on this cur- rent course of money over all else, I want out! JOHN TROMBLEY ENGINEERING JUNIOR Reporting on Life Sciences Institute is uncritical To THE DAILY: The Daily's uncritical reporting of the Life Science Institute and the subject of the role of life sciences research in general is disturbing. The fact is that people all over the world are currently engaged in a battle to save their food supplies from genetic and economic manipulation. Life science research at the University is basically a tax- payer subsidy for corporate research and development so that large companies can own patents on world foodgrains and liter- ally monopolize and dominate food produc- tion globally just so they can make profit. As a student who comes out of a long tradi- tion of farming, I seriously challenge you to read your history regarding the current trends in the area of biotechnology and agri- cultural business. SGoT NEWELL LSA SENIOR Chant does not signal a first down TO THE DAILY: This is a response to James Cotton, who wrote a letter insisting that the Seminole Feminism should focus on boosting women's self-image TO THE DAILY: Usually, I mind my business. I am not one to stare at accidents or lead protests, but the blatant display of ignorance irritates me. Feminism might mean different things to dif- ferent people, but to me, it is the idea that all genders (men, women, myn, womyn or what- ever) are equal. Hence, I am a feminist. I am neither militant nor a man-hater so it always amazes me when someone says that I believe that "the external world has crushed the poor, innocent victim of male torment and torture" ("T-shirt letter was overly sensitive," 9/23/99). When I read the letter about the frat T- shirts, I was not outraged. I was not even a lit- tle angry. To be honest, all I felt was a little sadness for the boys wearing the shirts. To me, their slogan did not imply that they only want- ed thin women. What it implied was that all they wanted from females was their bodies. Simple as that. Women are a lot more than that so I felt sorry for the boys. It was just a display of pure unadulterated immaturity. Even though as Rabeh Soofi said, "T- shirts do not make you fat and unattractive," the media and outside opinions play important. parts in people's lives in this culture. So, Christina Koury and Simi Dhawan have a point. However, I believe the feminist move- ment should not focus on preventing men from making stupid statements like this, but on making women have enough self-esteem to ignore them. Feminism should focus on mak- ing a woman realize that her self-worth does not depend on what other people, men for example, think of her. It is true that eating disorders are prevalent in this society. We also realize that many fac- tors contribute to it. I think Rabeh Soofi's belief that "a thin girl ... takes care of herself and values herself enough to keep in shape" adds to it. We all know that we all have differ- ent metabolic rates. Some people are made to be skinny while some others are made to be plump. Who is to say that the plump girl does not "value herself?" How do you know she is not a healthily eater who exercises properly? Or is valuing yourself restricting your meals to ,cnnd-z nd Mrina ,ctnrtn-c, vpw',cpfn~r three, ' Y "t 4 -~ -1 9 i