4 - The Michigan Daily - Tuesday, November 14, 2000
cbe Lijbigat aing
I
You 're simply the best, but are you better than all the rest?
420 Maynard Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
daily.etters@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 Dailv's editorial board. All other articles, letters and cartoons do not
necessarily reflect the opinion of The Michigan Daily.
S ee if the following statement offends you:
Some people arejust better than others are.
I am not bothered by this proposition. Allow
me to elaborate.
There are two conceptions of the word "bet-
ter." One conception
denies the essential
human dignity of cer-
tain groups of people; it
has a lot of terrible
implications - "master
race" theories, eugenics,"
etc. This is definitely5
not what I mean. When
I say that some people
are better than others,
I'm referring to another
conception of "better"Nck
- "better" in the purely
superficial sense. I am Woomer
saying that if it were $
possible to take peoples'
natural abilities (such as Woo
raw intelligence, athleti-
cism, creative ability, comeliness, personal
charisma, etc.) and rank everyone in relation to
one another on the basis of the relative strengths
of their natural abilities, some sort of hierarchy
would emerge.
Ranking peoples' personal attributes (espe-
cially intelligence) is a politically sensitive topic
and certainly extremely complicated - it is
probably an impractical endeavor and may even
be impossible.
But any honest person will admit that, in
terms of our natural abilities, we are certainly
not at all equal. Some people are just in better
physical shape than others, some people are
brighter than others and some people are just
California chooses rehabilitation over jail
more attractive than others. If we are willing to
admit this (and how can we not?) then why is it
so inappropriate and disconcerting to us to say
that one person can rank lower than another in
every single category? What is there to be upset
about? What are we trying to hide?
The answer is embedded in a typical counter
argument to the idea that some people are
superficially better than others. People like to
retort that everyone (and they do mean every-
one) has "some one thing" they're really good
at. Every person, contends this argument, has
some particular skill that they can perform bet-
ter than anyone else does. Therefore, no one can
be better than anyone else in the superficial
sense. ,
Constructing a conclusive proof against the
"some one thing" argument is probably exceed-
ingly difficult. Still, the "some one thing" argu-
ment sounds so fishy, so desperate that we
ought to be able to dismiss it safely. Are there
really six billion different skills out there for
each individual to excel in? Yet despite this, so
many, people remain incredibly committed to
the notion of superficial equality - why?
Because the myth of superficial equality (com-
bined with the myth of a classless society)
makes it easy for people to morally justify capi-
talism and the gross inequalities it produces.
Without relative equality of opportunity, capi-
talism becomes harder to justify on moral
grounds. Ask any Republican or Libertarian,
they'll tell you an individual's ability to be suc-
cessful under capitalism is limited only by his
or her willingness to work hard and/or innovate;
this sounds pretty good to most people. But
what if an individual's ability to be successful
under capitalism is not only limited by his or
her willingness to work and/or innovate? What
if peoples' socioeconomic class and/or the
strength of their natural abilities also affects
their chances of success under capitalism? In
that case, capitalism is probably going to start
sounding like a pretty lousy system.
It is undeniable that the strength of one's per-
sonal attributes can make him or her prone to
success in a capitalistic society. For example, if
a person is highly intelligent, that person can
become rich by inventing a new widget that a
lot of people will want to buy. If we assume that
there are no socioeconomic classes and if
everyone is superficially equal, the economic
playing field becomes pretty level and hard
work/ingenuity becomes the independent van-
able in the equation for success.
Capitalist conceptions of property rights
thrive on the notion that if a person owns some-
thing, they deserve to own it - that person
either worked for what he or she owns or he or
she was given what he or she owns by someone
who worked to give it away. Unless he or she
holds some ridiculous theological notion that
proposes a zero-sum relationship between right-
eousness and the strength of one's natural abili-
ties, no one is going to claim that smart people
deserve to be smart or that pretty people
deserve to be pretty. But if one's natural abilities
play a significant role in his or her success
under capitalism, how can we say that he or she
deserves what he or she has "earned"?
We can't. To claim otherwise is to say that
those superficial differences in peoples' natural
abilities are actually substantive - that because
some people are not as smart or creative as oth-
4
0
Sn an effort to ease an overpopula-
1 tion problem within their prison
system, Californians have passed
Proposition 36 which will send first
and second-time non-violent drug
offenders to rehabilitation centers
rather than jail. In Massachusetts a
similar proposition failed this past
election cycle - probably because
low-level drug dealers
were included on the This pr op
list of rehabilitation
candidates. Proposi- allows no
tion 36 makes the dis-
tinction between drug offei
non-violent users and
dealers or manufac- be rehabi
tures who affect other
people and should rather the
consequently be treat-
ed as criminals. incarcera
Because this proposi-_
tion allows non-vio-
lent drug offenders to be rehabilitated
rather than simply incarcerated, it is a
positive measure.
This new sentencing system may
also help alleviate the drug problem
that most big cities face. For years,
peop le have complained that the
revo ving door system of most pris-
ons has not helped users break their
habits. As a result, repeat offenders
are common because they are not
offered adequate rehabilitation ser-
vices. Drug addicts are often treated
as hopeless by the justice system
when in reality they can be helped.
Proposition 36 recognizes that
drug addiction is a health problem
and should be addressed as such.
Most drug addicts are a danger to
themselves rather than to others and
should be helped rather than pun-
10
11
a'
it
ished.
Incarcerating non-violent drug
offenders is also a racist policy. Stud-
ies show that blacks are arrested four
times as often as whites for drug
offenses. The government should take
some responsibility in order to fix
this problem.
Proposition 36 is also cost-effec-
tive. It is estimated
jSition that the state will
save about 250 mil-
j-violent lion dollars per year,
in addition to the 40
ders to million dollars that
the local government
itated will save. Hopefully
this will also mean
'l gjmp'y less demand for new
prisons, which would
, .also save taxpayers
millions of dollars.
Proposition 36 has
the potential to reduce the prison
population by 36,000 inmates each
year allowing the prison system to be
able to house harder criminals for
longer.
The rest of the nation should fol-
low California's lead. Drugs are a
major problem in this country and
obviously the old system needs to be
reevaluated because it has not
improved drug use. There are people
who believe that rehab will not be as
effective as the harsh reality of
prison. In time as people are sent to
rehab rather than prison they will
learn how to change their lifestyles
rather than being expected and
entrusted to do so on their own with
no help at all. Prison postpones the
problem, but hopefully rehab can
cure it.
e
"
EA Risky usines
EPA should control pollution standards
.1
j magine yourself in this situation: You sions standards
.1 are the Chief Executive Officer of a political footba
company in a large, profitable industry. These indus
What do you do when the Environmen- concerns under
tal Protection Agency creates a new lic health." Th
emissions standard that might reduce not create a m
the growth of your company's profit public health -
margin in the name of promoting public for human life.
health? Would you accept your moral be establishedt
,obligation to conform to the new stan- cost-benefit an
dards? If you are anything like industry the timetable i
leaders today, you might decide to initi- implemented. ]
ate a legal battle to
prove that the Environ- The industries
mental Protection
Agency's power to set involved in the suit
standards is unconsti-
tutional. Putting profits are asking that
ahead of people andm
the environment, this is human life be
just the battle that
many .collusive busi- weighedg ainst
ness interests have
chosen to pursue. monetary losses.
In 1997, the EPA
established new stan-
dards for smog and soot emissions, citing pay more mon
that 125 million Americans would bene- serve the lives
fit and that thousands of lives would be can people.
saved annually. It then set up a reasonable industries, the
strategy for the implementation of these deaths that the
standards on a state by state basis. vent are not wo
Some industries, not wanting to pay The industri
for cleaner fuel and more environmen- asking that h
tally friendly equipment, challenged the against monetar
agency over the constitutionality of its Industries l
standard-setting power. The industries' the health stud
representatives won a victory in the when it set er
District of Columbia Court of Appeals know that cu
.'last year. The ruling states that the cause thousand
EPA's broad powers over public health deaths annua
and safety are unconstitutional. It accepts industi
explains that the 1970 bill that gave the Congress canE
agency power to set standards violates dards, Congre
the nondelegation principle established them accounts
through Articles I to III of the Constitu- that they create
tion. The legal battle continues in the lines establishe
Supreme Court, which will soon decide The indepen
whether to force Congress to assume it to consider a
the power over setting standards that it standards in ar
granted the EPA. gress delegates
Ruling that only Congress can set so that decisior
emissions standards would be counter would be sham
productive, especially when the body has and more thar
such a geat number of issues to debate because industr
and a difficult time considering issues their profit ma
independently of other issues. Congress and more env
can hardly be expected to make emis- equipment.
into anything more than a
ill or a bargaining chip.
tries are also voicing their
r the use of the term "pub-
.e Supreme Court should
ore rigorous definition of
- there can be no price set
Emissions standards must
to preserve human life and
alysis should only cover
n which the standards are
The EPA has acted on this
principle admirably.
The industry repre-
sentatives also argue that
the EPA has no right to
set standards for public
health. They further
argue that when the EPA
makes its decisions, it
does not use proper cost-
benefit analysis to bal-
ance health with
monetary loss. They
believe the EPA is caus-
ing affected industries to
ey than necessary to pre-
and health of the Amen-
For the complaining
thousands of premature
new standards will pre-
rth financial risk.
es involved in the suit are
uman life be weighed
ry losses.
have seen the results of
dies the EPA considered
missions standards and
rrent emissions levels
ds of otherwise avoidable
illy. Even if the Court
ries' argument that only
establish emissions stan-
ss can and should hold
able for the health risks
e by retaining the guide-
d by the EPA.
ndence of the EPA allows
and implement necessary
n efficient manner. Con-
power to other agencies
ns are made efficiently. It
eful for thousands to die
n 100 million to suffer
ies do not want to cut into
rgin to buy cleaner fuels
vironmentally friendly
Constitutionality
takes precedence
over partisanship
TO THE DAILY:
I admit to being a supporter of Al Gore and
would very much love to see him emerge victo-
rious once this electoral decision is finally made.
However. I do not feel that going against this
nation's most sacred set of principles, the United
States Constitution, is something that should
ever be considered when deciding this election.
Even with the knowledge that there is an over-
whelming probability of irregularities and con-
fusion involved with some of the ballots in
Florida. allowing a handful of counties to revote
would do a great disservice to the integrity of
our constitution and this country as a whole.
This election needs to be handled in a manner
that follows the procedure stated in the electoral
process and agreed upon by the nation. It is not
the right of the citizens of Florida or the Democ-
rats throughout this nation to retroactively
change the electoral process in lieu of a few bal-
lot irregularities.
Our attitudes as citizens of this country
should be to let this election run its course and.
once that has finished, to make our voices heard.
We need to tell our congressmen to get off their
hands and start taking the steps necessary to
amend the constitution, ridding it of the Elec-
toral College and in addition, to create a federal-
ly standardized ballot utilized by all 50 states.
WALTER COLEMAN
DENTAL SCHOOL
Big House should
avoid luxury boxes
TO THE DAILY:
While we applaud the selection of Bill Mar-
tin as the University's new athletic director, we
were very disappointed to read his quote regard-
ing luxury boxes in the fall issue of The Michi-
gan Alumnus. When responding to a question
about his top priorities, he replied, "It's not a
matter of if, it's when ... for adding stadium
boxes." Here we go again. We finally got that
embarrassing halo problem resolved and now
we're planning to segregate the Big House in the
Rebate the debate
R ebate the Debate, Mr. President-Elect.
Beat the spread of Pennsylvania Avenue
stardom.
Don't remodel
Daddy's Lego govern-
ment-playset in the
Austin mansion's living
room.
Don't quarter-back
your humanity away:
with your JFK-like;
tosses for Peter Jen-
nings and Bernard
Shaw.
Liberate, don't for- Waj
nicate.
Realize, don't rape. Syed
Win. Or Lose. The Karachi
Be Presidential.
'This could happen to any
student who was normally dri
- UniversityProvost Nanc
Eng
name of deficit reductions.
Earlier this year, Martin sent two of his man-
agers to see what other programs such as
Nebraska, Tennessee and Arizona were doing
with their stadiums to raise revenues. Since
when does Michigan have to play "follow the1
leader?" There must be better alternatives than
luxury boxes for an elite few who, like Martin,1
can afford to pay exorbitant fees to view our
home games in climate-controlled comfort. The
University is a public institution and the public's
interests should always come before corporate
interests.
What we really need are more seats for those
who want to see the games in person. Every
year we have thousands of students, alumni, and
fans who are unable to purchase tickets to our
sold-out games. There are thousands more who
have been on waiting lists for season tickets forr
years. At the same time, scalpers are selling i
tickets for five to 10 times face value. Michigan 4
Stadium was designed so that it could be 1
enlarged to hold as many as 150,000 spectators.1
Why not add another 10 or 20 thousand seats to
accommodate our Michigan family first before.
we start to cater to the champagne and caviar
crowd? The additional seating would be a one-
time expense and should increase the athletic
ers, they are not entitled to live as well as their
'betters." Now that ought to offend you.
-Nick P'bomer can be reached via e-mail at
nwoomer@umich.edu.
student. This was not a
inking in excess this way.'
v Cantor, commenting on the death of
;ineering sophomore Bvung-Soo Kim.
department's funds for many years to come.
Some of Bill Martin's other ideas seem emi-
nently reasonable. Yes, we should consider rais-
ing our ticket prices to keep them in line with
other events. And yes, perhaps a seat between
the 40 yard lines should cost more that a seat in
Row 90 of the end zone. Selling advertising on
the video screens may even be acceptable as
long as there is no permanent physical signage.
However, charging special "seat license" fees
seems to be a discriminatory policy.
As was clearly demonstrated by the halo
controversy, the character, tradition and dignity
of the Michigan Stadium are close to the hearts
of fans and alumni around the world. This
"Field of Dreams" is also part of what attracts
some of the nation's finest athletes to become
Wolverines each year. We would like to see our
athletic department come up with some creative
ideas for raring additional revenues without
changing the nature of this centerpiece of
Michigan athletics. Better television, radio and
licensing contracts would be a good place to
start. If we want to continue to be the "Leaders
and Best" we need to innovate, not imitate.
GERALD AND SHARON HILL@
ALUMNI
I
THOMAS KULJURGIS
SPII 'A''KING
tiLx ( CA4iY
O44E'AX V,;CAN 4
Ti ck; " uFy ....
~&~zMARYt(AtEiydc:5
Ag-r' oulv[F-
E A A A A
tj
-
+ +K -o)
dY y
h jl
"
ELECTIoN
ROCKET
SCIENCE
(i w a
+.
and get a ee
Jerusalem bleeds.
gift
Stop running on divinenergizer batteries.
Start using secular fluids.
Disinfect the wounds of a holy city.
Honor the spiritual road-kills.
Rebate the Debate, Mr. Pro-Lifer.
Talk simplicity, not complicity.
You're anti-choice. You're anti-indepen-
dence.
Stop playing a social, biological or con-
stitutional God/Referee/Umpire.
If you're not pregnant, it's not your fuck-
ing call.
Rebate the Debate, Mr. I Didn't Go
Vote.
Think Kashmir. Think Afghanistan.
Think Mozambique. Think Uzbekistan.
Think Sierra Leone. Think Indonesia. Think
Spain. Think Chechnya. Think of all those
test-score advantage and a precedent of tacti-
cal-nuke hegemony. Meanwhile, your Uni-
versity remains as segregated as your church,
your cafeteria, your IT start-up office space
and your leadership seminar's homework
group.
Rebate the Debate, Mr. Daily Reader.
It's no surprise to you that all such columns,
reputed as the nadir of undergraduate bitchery,
have been and shall be dictated upon such
norms of quasi-prophetic indulgence.
But hey, don't listen to this. Don't listen
to Bollinger. Don't listen to DAAP. Just take
a look around yourself and do the math.
There are no pre-requisites to the class we
call Observation. Go ahead and register. It
might not fulfill the Race and Ethnicity
requirement, but it's free.
It's free and it's cruel.
0
I. ~ ~ . .. UUTI EU E
I
""""""""AM """""JIf o
II
V' IEV 11111111111 li &