4 - The Michigan Daily - Friday, April 4, 2003 OP/ED urIje £IIIW DidU 420 MAYNARD STREET ANN ARBOR, MI 48109 letters@michigandaily.com EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SINCE 1890 LOUIE MEIZLISH Editor in Chief AUBREY HENRETTY ZAC PESKOWITZ 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. NOTABLE QUOTABLE She has a highIQ. She gets along well with the other cows and doesn't push her way around." - Herd manager Dave Koepke of Wisconsin, on "Granny" the cow, who now holds the lifetime U.S. milk production record, as reported by The Christian Science Monitor. SAM BUTLER THET-- SOAPBOX D $a~~~~-it vi "dJ M iclnio fir' _- ,' ,-- - - _o r 4 i* Spring break into the breach DAVID ENDERS WEIRD SCIENCE BEIRUT, Lebanon - pring break is com- ing up, and every- one here asks me if I'm planning to travel. I haven't decided yet, but on Wednesday I went to the Iraqi Embassy. As I understand it, they're not really letting freelance journalists into the country right now, so I applied for a human shield visa. My reason for going to Iraq would be to act as an advocate for those caught in the middle of the war, though I'm not so sure I want to affiliate myself with a group that's been placing volunteers at power stations and other targets that, while technically protected by the Geneva Convention, are fair game in the de facto rules of war. At the embassy, my friend Hassan helped me fill out the visa form, which consisted of a copy of my passport and a blank sheet of paper on which I was to write my name, phone number and a short statement about why I want to travel to Iraq. Hassan was kind enough to speed the process by taking down my statement in Arabic as I dictated - writ- ing it myself, dictionary in hand, could have taken all day. While we were there, Lebanese men passed in and out as they signed up to go to Iraq as human shields, to fight against the American army or to serve as martyrs (their word, not mine). For persons traveling from other Arab countries, the visa approval is a same-day process, sans statement. I was a little disap- pointed the "official visa forms" were actually blank sheets of computer paper. I had a faint notion that perhaps there would be separate forms for each purpose, and the man behind the desk would say something like: "Human shield? That's the yellow form. You want to blow yourself up? Blue form. Over there." While Hassan wrote, a middle-aged Lebanese man missing a number of fingers asked me to help him cut out his passport photo. We didn't ask him why he was travel- ing; neither Hassan nor I wanted to know. I handed the man his picture and searched his face for any trace of discomfort or apprehen- sion. I was beginning to feel lightheaded at the possibility of being involved as a noncombat- ant; this man was perhaps planning his own death and appeared entirely calm as he pro- ceeded. As he stared back at me, I felt an odd sort of nexus. We have little in common. He is probably from one of Beirut's heavily Shiite suburbs and direct verbal communication between us was prevented by the language bar- rier - just one indicator of our vastly different experiences. Yet there we were, both signing on to stand with people to whom we have no obligation other than that which we feel as fel- low human beings. He is going to fight, I am going to write. We offer what we can. Hassan finished writing down my statement. "You got all of it? The part about witness- ing what the media in the states won't show? About telling people back home? About soli- darity with the suffering of the Iraqi people and showing that Americans don't all support their government's policies?" "Yeah man. I made it say 'the evil Ameri- can government.' It sounds better." I guess George Bush isn't the only person guilty of oversimplifying matters in order to get people into Iraq. I've been trying to figure out what'I'll tell my parents. Assuming my visa is approved, I'm not entirely sure I'll go. The way I see it now is that one can take calculated risks and reduce the chances of being harmed, but if carpet bombing or widespread martyrdom operations begin, I think I'll stay away. The idea of the U.S. Army shooting anyone that moves for fear they're carrying a bomb doesn't leave me very optimistic. I'm a jour- nalist, but I'm not suicidal. After a quiet cab ride back to campus, one of my friends told me she's worried I am "young and idealistic," and that she's not sure about my "ability to assess risk." I told her I'm just more risk-acceptant than the average person. I am not naive enough to think my traveling to and writing about Iraq will solve anything directly, nor that the problem is not as simple as American- led aggression. It extends to Arab regimes that will allow massive protests against the United States, but will quickly and brutally quell protests against their own govern- ments. As I write this, I sit next to a friend of mine, an Iraqi American who bristles every time she sees Saddam Hussein on television. She still has family in Iraq, and each time Al-Jazeera shows what it says are U.S.-caused casualties in Iraq, she asks aloud why the Arab world now openly con- demns the murder of civilians by Ameri- cans when Saddam has been doing it for so long without reproach. No, I am not naive enough to think my going to Iraq would change anything, but there is a certainly a part of me that wishes I were. 0 Enders can be reached at denders@umich.edu. LETTER TO THEEDITOR Racial preferences not the answer to flawed system To THE DAILY: I am writing today in order to bring up a point about the affirmative action debate which I believe has gone unstated. Further, while I haven't heard or read the entirety of the oral arguments, I believe that this was the point U.S. Supreme Court Justice Scalia was making regarding the elite law schools. The point is simply this; whenever anyone says minority enrollment will decrease if affirmative action is taken away, he is assum- ing that the admissions process will remain the same. I believe there are race-neutral means to get at diversity (since racial diversity is not the goal), but I know others disagree. Only time will tell. But, either way, the assumption remains. A similar assumption possibly prompted Scalia's "elite law school" series of questions. The University argues that it wishes to remain an elite law school while also maintaining experiential diversity. At the same time, the Law School itself is defining what it considers to be an "elite" law student, necessary for an "elite" law school; they rely heavily upon LSAT and GPA to get there. Then, they use a separate process, under their affirmative action program, to get that experiential diver- sity that is still lacking in the class chosen by LSAT and GPA. So, I think that what Scalia was attempting to ask, or should have asked, is why is there a need for the two programs? If the students who only get in through affirmative action are still "elite students," but are not getting cap- tured through the LSAT/GPA process, then the process is flawed. If diversity is so impor- tant, why doesn't the entire process focus on that, instead of treating it as a flaw to be fixed at the end? And by the way, leave athletes, legacies and the like out of this. Those are not constitutional- ly-protected classes, and are (or should be) irrele- vant to the court. Take those arguments (most of which I consider valid) to the regents. JASON KILLIPS Law student STAYING IN ANN ARBOR THIS SUMMER? WANT TO MEET SOME COOL PEOPLE WHILE YOU RE HERE? WRITE FOR DAILY OPINiI N OR AIPPLY TO BE A SUMMER COLUMNIs EITHER WAY, E-MAIL JASON PESICK AT JZPESICK@UMICHD U 0 0 VIEWPOINT A practical case against the war BY DAN ADAMS Like millions of Americans, I've spent the past weeks glued to the television, watching our million-dollar missiles slam into $10 tents with concern and awe - hardly emotions that should apply to what will mean the death and maiming of thousands of soldiers and civil- ians. Unlike most Americans, I have been reluctant to come out completely against or completely in favor of the war. The pacifist stance doesn't make much sense to me, as there are foreseeable instances in which pre- emptive military action could be justified. But I am against this war, and for reasons which until now have been buried in a muddled mix of fear and anger. I see President Bush advo- cate liberty in Iraq while limiting it at home; he ignores the United Nations in the same breath he extols its necessity. And worst of all, he justifies force in the name of peace - hardly a model of consistency. He stresses the necessity of Saddam's removal when dozens of other regimes stand at the brink of nuclear development. He has made the case clear that Saddam is dangerous, and I don't disagree. But which is more dangerous: a man with unilateral action may prevent a terrorist attack out of Iraq, but it could also lead to attacks out of any one of dozens of developing nations. Scary. What of these other "rogue nations?" Should we invade and disarm each? We're blowing the hell out of Iraq, all the while doing our best not to even talk to the North Koreans. Even if you were to give Bush the benefit of the doubt concerning his diplo- matic efforts in the U.N. Security Council, his decision to lump North Korea into the infa- mous Axis of Evil can only be described as one of the most inept (and dangerous) foreign policy decisions in recent history. Not only does North Korea have little in common with Iran and Iraq, but the move alienated the Unit- ed States from a regime that had shown its willingness to compromise on its nuclear weapons goals. Fast forward to the present. North Korea has asked for diplomatic talks concerning its nuclear weapons program, and in an effort to express U.S. will, we are sys- tematically refusing their offer. Scary. The mechanism that helped pull us through the cold war - the United Nations - has seen itself irreparably damaged by this sit- uation. Despite the fact that the United Nations may have disagreed with us, make no kind of thing all the time. We certainly do it all the time, but rarely with any success. From Diem in South Vietnam, to the shah of Iran, to any one of several Latin and South American puppet governments, our track record in pursuing regime change isn't stel- lar. Usually, the man we support is the greater of two evils and rarely has but a shred of popular support (funny, given that we usu- ally prop these men up in the name of democracy and liberty). On a very basic level, if a nation is to ini- tiate open war with another, one would hope that it does so in order that if its objectives are achieved, the world (or at least its own population) would be better off for having fought it. Are we as a nation, as a world, going to be better off for having fought a second Persian Gulf War? The answer, no matter which way I look at it, seems to be an unequivocal, no. On paper, a stable Iraq is being destabilized, a cooperating internation- al community is being alienated, we are weakening a once-potent United Nations, and most troubling, a dangerous leader is being backed into a corner and grossly underestimated. We have deemed our effort "Operation Iraqi Freedom," as if this had THE BOONDOCKS A A RON M CURLUER ANEW SW THAT M tSAYS V ONE T mis IS CNN.I'M oA AR owN