1111111 IN I IN III PON WON I 11 MINE iiiiiii'l - llljlffi Y 3 , H4 f4 T Y SECTI NEWS: 76-DAILY www.michigandally.com Fall 2003 ZAC PESKOWITZ Only in the Daily Daily has raised eyebrows, ire for 112 years Reassessig the a ge o 'r ag oBollinger Despite the swell atmospherics, when the University celebrated its victory at the U.S Supreme Court on June 23 there was something missing. It had noth- ing to do with the substance of the court's decisions. The missing element was much more nebulous than that - it had something to do with style. The missing piece could be found in the June 24 Wash- ington Post. Lee Bollinger, former University president and current top man at Columbia University, championed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's majority opinion in Grut- ter v. Bollinger with a triumphant op-ed. Lee Carroll Bollinger. The Oregon native who worked his way to Columbia Law School and clerked for Chief Justice Warren Burger. The man who made women swoon with his boyish good looks, basking in the cult of youth. A real live public intellectual. His popularity stemmed from his keen sense for pub- lic relations and his uniqueness in the blase pantheon of contemporary university presidents. After Michigan beat Ohio State in 1997 and clinched a trip to the Rose Bowl, Bollinger opened the President's House to hordes of rev- eling students, a ploy that instantly won him the approval of the University community. Bollinger has one character trait that is incredibly unusual for a mod- ern university president: he is equally comfortable in the ivory tower and the corridors of power. His courageous testimony during Robert Bork's abortive confirmation hearing for a spot on the Supreme Court illustrated Bollinger's relevance to great national debates. Rumors that Bollinger had his own aspirations for a seat on the court were commonplace during his years in Ann Arbor. His tenure as the poster boy for the cause of affirmative action only added to his reputation as an arbiter of fun- damental public policy issues. While maintaining his Washington credentials, Bollinger skillfully managed his bona fides as a serious academic through teaching classes in the Law School and a wildly popular undergraduate political science course. His ability to walk the tightrope between these two spheres led some to believe that Bollinger could be the reincarnation of the nationally prominent university presidents of yore. From James Conant Bryant to Robert Maynard Hutchins to Woodrow Wilson, the presidents of the nation's major uni- versities were some of the most important individuals in the country and their institutions of higher learning were the center of intellectual life. (The University had its own spell in this spotlight during the early 1960s, when John Kennedy, Robert McNamara and Lyndon Johnson all used the Ann Arbor campus to propose major policy initiatives like the Peace Corps and Great Society) When Bollinger departed for New York, the col- lective wisdom was that the University had enjoyed five fat years under Bollinger's leader- ship and with his departure lean years would soon be upon us. In the emotional moments when students realized that Bollinger was really leaving, a flush of positive words marked his departure. But beneath these paeans of praise, there were deservedly rancorous memories. At the University, Bollinger mastered the black art of triangulation where he used the technique to devas- tating effect. He let students continue their sit-ins and, as a result, avoided the public relations disaster that would emerge out of cracking down on student protest- ers. (Interestingly, current University President Mary Sue Coleman allowed students to be arrested while protesting at the University of Iowa.) Once they had ended their sit-ins and the media spotlight had moved on, Bollinger never made significant concessions. On Michigamua, the University's apparel contracts and the Code of Student Conduct, Bollinger outflanked inexpe- rienced student activists while solidifying his reputa- tion as a concerned leader willing to listen to the complaints of students. Bollinger engaged in a never ending dialogue with students that created the impres- sion that he cared. Bollinger's interest in long-term projects belied the desire to secure a legacy for himself in Ann Arbor. His overriding efforts to develop massive projects led to sev- eral major failures which continue to haunt the Universi- ty. The Walgreen Drama Center and Arthur Miller Theater, which are now in limbo, were the most high- profile disasters on this front. He argued the facility ought to be "world-class" and the cost overruns and delays have spiraled out of control due to that mandate. In the past few years, the project has undergone a series of proposed permutations from reducing its size to mov- ing the site to North Campus. Another disconcerting habit was Bollinger's penchant for intellectual fads, the Life Sciences Institute being the most notorious example. The University had to be involved because biotechnology was the next "it" disci- pline. By the divine fiat of Lee Bollinger, the University was going to peg its future on biotech and that was that. So what was the Bollinger presidency really about and what lessons can we draw from it in the decidedly unexciting, almost comatose reign of Mary Sue Cole- man? It wasn't really about the University, it was about Lee Bollinger. You take the showmanship and you lose the substance. In the mind of Lee Carroll Bollinger, we have been privileged to have been The great debates of generations past have played out across this page. As have the truly inane. From antiquated conflicts over the intricacies of dining hall policies and the merits of co-ed residence halls to modern-day spats between University professors and impassioned activists, the Daily's editorial page has served as a forum for all manner of University discourse of the last 112 years. For all the good lively debate does the community, this line of work does have its drawbacks. Bygone Daily editors and opinion-makers have found themselves attacked by Michigan football coach Bo Schembechler and hauled into jail by the Ann Arbor Police Department. May of 1962 saw a likeness of acting Daily City Editor Michael Harrah dangling from a tree over the Diag. Harrah's offense? An opinion piece in which he declared students' eating habits slovenly and vulgar. Although the times have changed, conspiratorial regents, University presidents and stu- dent leaders have continued to single out the Daily as the source of all evil at the University. At a University which has not always honored the freedom of speech and expression of its students and faculty, the Daily has stood as the unequivocal champion of the voiceless. In the 1950s and early-60s, when the University instituted a crippling attack on academic inquiry - a unilateral ban on academic speakers who were not affiliated with the University - the Daily's editorial page exposed the administration as an enemy of the free exchange of ideas. It took many years for the University to capitulate, but eventually the University was forced to yield to the advance of free speech and thought. More recently, when the University has reverted to sensational advertising and misinfor- mation campaigns to stamp out University tradition, the Daily has been there to call the bluff. University and Department of Public Safety public relations officials spent hours last year trying - to no avail - to convince the Daily's editorial board not to present the Naked Mile as something worth saving, not to dispute their depictions of the event as a life-threat- ening pox on the entire community. The Daily occupies a unique position in the collective University psyche; students, administrators, staff and alumni alike feel a sense of ownership over the Daily, yet the Daily belongs to no one. It is an editorially and financially independent institution with a loud voice all its own. It thrives in the face of criticism, stands firm in its convictions and speaks where others are content to remain silent. Today, we affirm and uphold the ideals which have guided the Daily from its founding in 1890 to the present day. As the University reached its tryst with destiny at the U.S. Supreme Court, the Daily's editorial page remained the one place where all students and faculty can engage in critical discussion for public consumption. Only in the Daily do the opinions of students and professors appear side by side, fierce campus debates extend beyond Diag rallies and bright-pink quarter-sheets and national issues become fraught with local significance. That is what makes the Daily unique. That is what we are here to defend. Aubrey Henretty Zac Peskowitz Editorial Page Editors February 3, 2003 Not in Iowa anymore: Coleman's first year marked by indecision As the first academic year of University President Mary Sue Coleman's tenure came to a close, she had yet to assert herself as a prominent leader during a contro- versial period in University history. She had yet to demonstrate an ability to effectively lead the University in a clear and exciting manner. Since ascending to her post, Coleman has shown a disturbing lack of involvement in stu- dent affairs, managing to remain remarkably absent from students' lives. To take an active role in the University, a president needs to make a conscious effort to have her presence felt around the campus. Throughout the year, she has been absent from student functions and is rarely seen around the campus. From the beginning of her tenure, she has shown a reluctance to interact with students at close proximity. She has declined to teach a course this year, a highly-valued tradition that kept past University presidents and adminis- trators in close contact with students. Further- more, Coleman has closed off the usual avenues of student-president contact of the past. For example, the fireside chats and cof- fee hours that allowed concerned students to inform the current president of student issues at the University are now often invitation only. When student groups do approach her, Coleman has not made an effort to address their concerns in a prompt and effective sentatives from the United Needletrade, Industrial and Textile Employees, asked Coleman to terminate all University con- tracts with Morgan due to their mistreatment of workers, Coleman was vague and indeci- sive in her response. While former interim President B. Joseph White promptly cut the University's contract with the New Era Cap Co. last year in order to pressure New Era to negotiate pay and condi- tions with their employees, Coleman merely agreed not to renew their long- term contracts, leaving herself a loop- hole to stay invested in Morgan through short-term ones.4 The incident concerning Mor- gan also illustrates Coleman's reluctance to take decisive action. Her response to the the conflict was to create a task- force to recommend a new purchasing policy. While task- forces can help shed light on; important issues and to find possible solutions, they are not a solution in and of them- Mary Sue Colt selves. If any real action does come out of the committee, it is likely to be long overdue. oleman's failure to take decisive enhancing the University's intellectual atmos- phere. This failure to address the pressing issues of the day is enough to make students long for the days when university presidents across the country were intellectual giants pur- suing ambitious goals. Unlike these leaders, such as Princeton University President Woodrow Wilson, Coleman seems intent on avoiding controversy that would challenge both faculty and students. The University president should touch the hearts and minds of the students who will soon take their places on the world's stage, steering the country into the future. his hesitancy is fur- ther evident in Cole- man's inability to become a voice for the Uni- versity across the country and the world. The affirmative action lawsuits provided her with many opportunities to raise her national stature. She has been nan unsuccessful in this arena. Coleman has never made a television appear- ance to defend the University's position on the affirmative action lawsuits. The most important step she took to garner media attention for the cause was to submit an opin- When the University regents selected Cole- man to be the next president, they were taking a historic action, as Coleman is one of only a few women heading an elite university. This provided Coleman with the unique opportuni- ty to achieve national stature. She remains, however, unknown around the country. Brown University President Ruth Simmons, in com- parison, has instantly rocketed to national prominence. She has spoken at the National Press Club; has been on "60 Minutes" and has made appearances at prominent national events. On the other hand, despite the afore- mentioned opportunities, Coleman is not regarded as a dynamic leader. M ost importantly, Coleman has not clearly outlined her ideas for the future of the University. After her first year as president, there remains no sig- nificant proposals with which to identify Coleman. Some of the blame for this lies in Coleman's failure to fill key administrative posts. For example, after her first academic year, there remained no permanent dean for the College of Literature Science and the Arts nor an executive vice president for medical affairs. Coleman will not be able to plan a future for the University with so many holes in her team. But the blame for Coleman's dearth of ideas cannot be attribu1te~d to emntv or only temn- I I I