4 - The Michigan Daily - Wednesday, September 15, 2004_____ OPINION 420 MAYNARD STREET ANN ARBOR, MI 48109 rL Utothedaily@michigandaily.com EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SINCE 1890 JORDAN SCHRADER Editor in Chief JASON Z. PESICK Editorial Page Editor Unless otherwise noted, unsigned editorials reflect the opinion of the majority of the Daily's editorial board. All other pieces do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Michigan Daily. NOTABLE QUOTABLE The incident became ugly when players approached the seating area." - Oakland Athletics vice-president of stadium operations Dave Rinetti, referring to an altercation during Monday night's game that spilled into the stands, as reported yesterday by he Associated Press. SAM BUTLER T = - for As C a f t C tJt' L'7WC1 t'O .C,.' 'toY1. _ P i P,., - , c3 =_ i --. _ -fir::, F .r' yi((/ , - 1 y , ' " ,. '' V p ti I . .. .:- 1 , .. i.. l--- t' r \ =, -/ ,. , i . ._ - - / _ .." a .«..f ". Looking the gift horse in the mouth ELLIoTT MALLEN IRRATIONAL EXUBERANC Real estate mogul Stephen Ross recently gave $100 million to the Uni- versity's Business School, making it the largest gift ever given to the Univer- sity and the largest given to any business school in the country. The dire bud- getary situation in which the University currently finds itself gives the giddy thanks lavished on Ross a tinge of des- peration. While the gift is certainly a substan- tial amount of money, it's not money that the University should have to rely on to survive. The delirium of the University officials after having received such a bailout shows that our public university can no longer rely on public funds to function regularly, and is now forced to whore itself out to outrageously wealthy alumni by dangling the enticements of nam- ing rights and shameless adoration. Our very own University President Mary Sue Coleman put it aptly in April, saying that "30, the state provided 70 percent of the funding for instruction at our Ann Arbor campus. Today, we receive less than 30 percent of our instructional funding from the state." This significant drop in funding has to be made up somehow, and there are few potential sources. If the state won't sup- port its namesake school, perhaps the federal government could step in. This is far from likely, given our current administration's reluctance to adequately fund education. Leaving No Child Behind must not extend to providing a college education, despite the fact that well over 3 mil- lion college students could be given a full ride for a four-year public university with the money spent on the war in Iraq. Too bad that would mean our overexerted military would have a harder time attracting recruits too poor to afford the prohibitive costs of education without the help of the G.I. Bill. Having been abandoned by both the state and federal governments, the University has no choice but to get on its knees and beg because, as Coleman concedes, "We just can't generate enough money from the state and tuition alone." I was a grunt on the front lines of this begging for two weeks, making $7.25 an hour to squeeze a little bit more out of already overextended parents and alumni. We understand you've had to take out a second mortgage to fund your daughter's education, and we know that she's now thousands of dol- lars in debt and is still searching for a job, any job, that will employ her for full time and pay a living wage, but could you please spare an extra $100 to make the posting wall of Angel Hall a little more gleaming? No? Well thanks for your time, have a great evening while I slit my wrists. Working the phones also made me aware of how many strings are attached to private dona- tions. After hearing countless wealthy alumni refuse to donate on account of our affirmative action policies and the alarmingly high level of left-leaning faculty (I spoke with one man who said he'd give thousands if only the Universi- ty would stop giving out need-based financial aid or, in his words, "rewards for laziness"), it became clear that relying heavily on these peo- ple to stay afloat can easily result in the Univer- sity becoming more accountable to the wealthy donating elite than the public it was originally established to serve. Public universities receive government funds in order to ensure their independence. The Uni- versity is given great freedom to choose how to spend public funds, but it has no choice but to accept strings attached to private donations. While the University was teetering on the brink of financial hardships in 2003, Rick and Judy Perlman gave $500,000 to open the Perlman Honors Commons, a plush study space for Hon- ors students that includes such amenities as a bar space for coffee and food, comfortable chairs to accommodate the special ass-cushioning needs of Honors students and wall murals celebrating the achievements of the University's famous alumni and pointing out some highlights in the University's long and colorful history. Mean- while, parents and students are tightening their belts to record-breaking levels of compression. At least the student whose future will be com- promised under the weight of five-digit student loans can draw inspiration from the enlarged visage of JFK while filling out scholarship applications in the Honors Commons. While gifts such as this can be superfluous extras the University can take pride in, they can also be a liability. The state and federal govern- ments can point to the sizable donations the University receives in order to justify further cutbacks, putting it in an even more precarious situation of dependence. They lend justification to shifting income from public funds to condi- tional and inconsistent private donations. I'm not trying to discourage alumni from giving to the University. God knows we need the money. It's just dangerous to rely on the benevolence of the wealthy to keep our univer- sity functioning properly. Mallen can be reached at emmallen @umich.edg. 0 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Bush is the candidate of 'moral clarity' TO THE DAILY: First of all, I'd like to thank Jason Pesick for showing how foolish we "traditionalist, fundamentalist" Christians are, especially for abandoning all trust in modern medicine. I'll consider myself admonished, if slightly sur- prised, as I don't know any Christians who feel that way. I would encourage readers to talk to Christians on campus, and see how many of them would refuse hospital treatment, instead waiting for God to provide a miracle. Unless you're talking to a member of the Christian Science Church (which is in complete disagree- ment with accepted Christian orthodoxy), you probably won't hear the "dangerous message" that Pesick thinks we preach. For most Chris- tians, healing can come in a direct manner from God, or in an indirect manner, through the use of medicine or the work of a surgeon. In this regard, I would encourage Pesick to conduct some background research outside of watching Pat Robertson and the "700 Club." Now, if I don't support the candidate of "sci- ence," John Kerry, I'm happy to be supporting the candidate of moral clarity, President Bush. Embryonic stem cell research, like it's com- panion issue, abortion, walks on very shaky moral ground. You can use scientific terms like ESCR or dilation and extraction, but the life of a human being is still being terminat- ed. The human embryos used in ESCR are 7 days away from a beating heart, and Nancy and Ronald Reagan Jr. can't seriously believe that the esteemed author of "The Conscience of a Nation" would approve of such a practice. It boils down to this: Do we place an intrin- sic value on human life, something that no one can take away? Or does the value of humans change simply by changing their size, location, development or level of dependency? I'll leave that one up to you. MIKE SALTSMAN LSA senior Alum 'embarrassed' about loss to Notre Dame To THE DAILY: I am writing concerning the abysmal foot-- ball effort this past weekend. As students and recent grads, we've been put through some rough losses by our beloved football team. With every loss comes feelings of confusion, sadness and frustration. However, this week- end's game at Notre Dame brought on a feel- ing of embarrassment that myself and other students and alumni have never felt before. Through the ultra conservative play calling that stifled our most talented players and rolled the red carpet for Notre Dame, Michigan effective- ly gave up in that game before ever stepping on that field in South Bend and did not come to win at all. The choice of play-calling made it look more like a kicker's scrimmage than an actual game, and it seemed as if Lloyd Carr owed Tyrone Willingham a favor. If this were a heavyweight fight, people would assume we took a dive. There were mistakes made on the field, but nothing that you couldn't expect in a hard-fought game. The choice to run the ball with our non- existent running game right at their defense and neglect even thinking about scoring a touchdown doomed this game. We have the best receiving corps in the nation and a quar- terback who (despite his inexperience) can throw at them past the first down marker and into the endzone. I understand it is easier to unjustifiably blame the coach with a lifetime of experience for the failures of the young men who actually take the field; however, this is one game in which the onus is squarely on Carr and the coaching staff. Myself and fel- low alumni walked out of South Bend thor- oughly humiliated at our team's performance and without that benefit of knowing that we went down fighting. We went down out of our own will. This should never happen again. Our team should be given the chance to compete and play like the leaders and the best in every game, and hopefully the debacle we witnessed this past weekend will never happen again. NELSON E. LOPEZ Alum VIEWPOINT Nader: righteous fury BY ALYSSA BERNSTEIN I attended Ralph Nader's speech at Ohio Uni- versity on September 12 because I wanted to find out whether this man, who had been one of my heroes before 2000, really had just lost touch with reality and become an egomaniac. It was an extraordinary speech, fiery, eloquent, and inspir- ing. It demonstrated that Nader is not only sane but also brilliant, and that he remains passionate- ly committed to the same democratic values that motivated his four-decade career as a consumers' advocate and "public citizen." country. What I asked Nader was whether he would withdraw his candidacy before the election. I said that if he did not, I could not support his campaign. And I said that I realized he might not be able to give me a straight answer, depending on his political strategy. He did not give me a straight answer. He said that corporations have usurped the people's sov- ereignty in numerous ways, including manipulat- ing both Democratic and Republican politicians. He told of having struggled for many years to prevent the Democratic Party from moving win this election. Nader denied that he was responsible for Bush's taking the White House in 2000. For proof he referred me to a statistical analysis done by academics at the University of Wisconsin. Not yet having studied this paper, I don't know whether it absolves Nader of blame for the out- come of the 2000 election. In any case, it cannot guarantee that he will not be to blame this year if he decides not to pull out before Election Day and Bush edges out Kerry. Nader defends himself by saying that voters make their own decisions; he's trying to give - ~8~4i~.4*W ~'-..' : :: ai + #c.1. F st7 a :A44 r:ssv ' z