4 - The Michigan Daily - Wednesday, March 23, 2005 OPINION ~ie irlp Pti JASON Z. PESICK Editor in Chief SUHAEL MOMIN SAM SINGER Editorial Page Editors ALISON GO Managing Editor EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SINCE 1890 420 MAYNARD STREET ANN ARBOR, MI 48109 tothedaily@michigandaily.com NOTABLE QUOTABLE I realize at times I have been an imperfect servant." -Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, in prepared remarks prior to last night's State of the City address, as reported yesterday by the Detroit Free Press. r- SAM BUTLER Ti; SoAxPBox *1 14WE EGTo GE O C7 E E G Eo tawE It's not quite the undergraduate protest I was hoping for. Support the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative DAN SHUSTER THE /AST RI(HT-ING CONSPIRACY 01 n 1964, the Civil Rights Act was passed in order to make racial discrimination in public places illegal, in addition to forcing employers to treat people equally regard- less of "race, ethnicity, or national origin." Funding would have been rescinded for any project that was found in violation of this act. Unfortunately, the intention of the Civil Rights Act has not been ful- filled, because 41 years later, it is still necessary to re-affirm this mandate in order to guarantee the equal treatment of an individual. Enter the Michi- gan Civil Rights Initiative. Even though it has come under scrutiny in the last 10 years, affirmative action has been policy for over 30. The only races to receive preferential treatment from it are blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans. Whites receive "neutral action," meaning they do not receive any preferential treatment or penalty. In the majority of schools using affirmative action, Asians receive "negative action," meaning they are penalized for simply being Asian. The dropout rate at the University, for those receiving "neutral" and "negative action" is 17 percent, whereas those receiving affirmative action is 39 percent. Over 60 percent of Michigan residents support the abolishment of racial and gender preferences. Weighing this fact against Sen. John Kerry's victory here in last year's presi- dential election, affirmative action must be seen as a nonpartisan issue. Texas, California, Florida, Oregon and Georgia have all adopted race neutral admissions. All of the schools in these states have achieved minority enrollment that equals or sur- passes that of the University. So how did they do it? These states adopted a race- and gender-neutral admission policy called the X-percent system. This system takes into account that not all high schools are as rigorous as one another, but assumes that there are hard- working students everywhere, regardless of race or gender. So, state institutions guarantee posi- tions to students in a top fixed percent, usually 10 to 20 percent of each high school. This system has been successfully proven to support diversity and enforce a meritocracy and, when adopted in Michigan, will do the same. The University states that it is pursuing racial preference programs in order to achieve diversity. No one need argue the merits of diversity, but at what cost? Is the University succeeding with such a staggering minority dropout rate? Those receiving admittance based on race and not merit may be unprepared for the rigors of this difficult school. The real solution to the problem is to improve K-12 education at schools populated by disadvantaged students. Ending affirmative action in these states has allowed universities there to develop outreach programs aimed at improving minority education, even at the elementary-school level. The previously mentioned states drastically improved their inner-city schools after racial pref- erences were abolished. Opponents of MCRI are aware that the facts are on our side, so they wage a deceptive cam- paign designed to create apocalyptic conspiracy theories to scare us all. Let me address a few of them. They accuse MCRI of attempting to con- fuse voters with its language. So, here it is: "A proposal to amend the consti- tution to prohibit the University of Michigan and other state universities, the state, and all other state entities from discriminating or granting preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin." If you are confused by this blunt language, you shouldn't even be voting. Next, the opponents claim that if MCRI passes it will set the progress of women and minorities back 50 years. Already I have established that all race-neutral states have still maintained the ability to achieve racial and gender diversity equal or greater than that at the University. The next "end of the world" theory is that MCRI will prevent medical benefits for women. Again, this can be simply answered by quoting clause 5 of the proposal: "Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex that are reasonably nec- essary to the normal operation of public employ- ment, public education, or public contracting." Is there anything you can do to help? You bet. Aside from voting for MCRI in 2006, you can attend a rally in its support on April 1 at noon on the Diag. See you there! Shuster can be reached at dshuster@umich.edu. *I PIRGIM's predicament CHRISTOPHER ZBROZEK BORN IN THE U.S.A. tudents for Public Interest Research Group in Michigan has generated a lot of sup- * port - and a lot of con- troversy - in its effort to establish a funded chapter on campus. Arguing that a PIRGIM chapter would fight for students on issues ranging from textbook pric- ing to tenants' rights, it sought $20,000 from the Michigan Student Assembly's discretionary fund to pay for a year-long trial period to demonstrate results for students. That effort has been stalled by an injunction filed last month arguing that a PIRGIM chapter would imperil MSA's tax-exempt status. Since then, students following the issue have had a quick lesson on 501(c)(3) organizations, the Southworth cases, and other such lovely bits of tax law. The injunction was upheld last week, and it appears PIRGIM's funding request will be firmly bound in red tape for the foreseeable future. If Students for PIRGIM is able to navigate the MSA bureaucracy and gets funding for a trial peri- od, it will then have to seek a permanent source of funding through student fees. Such a funding meth- od would most likely require a student fee increase approved by the University Board of Regents. A look at PIRGIM's past, however, hints that trying to fund a full chapter on campus through student fees might ultimately be a losing battle. A PIRGIM chapter was started on campus in 1972 after the regents were presented with a petition of over half the student body supporting PIRGIM. The regents agreed to allow PIRGIM to seek funding through the University's fee collec- tion system from students wishing to donate, so long as they maintained the support of one-third of the student body. With a shift in the registration system in 1975, the opt-in system was replaced with an unpopular negative check-off system that automatically assessed fees for PIRGIM but allowed students to seek a refund. In 1977, the regents agreed to go back to the opt- in system, and PIRGIM soon saw a drop in fund- ing below the one-third student support mandated in the 1972 agreement. Seeing in PIRGIM a con- structive alternative to the chaotic activism of the '60s and '70s, several regents at the time actively supported PIRGIM. They cut the minimum required support to 25 percent and then 20 before eliminating the requirement altogether. But by fall term 1985, only 8.5 percent of students chose to donate to PIRGIM, and the regents cut the group off from the student fee system. PIRGIM sought funds from MSA for a couple of years thereafter, apparently in vain. Obviously, this all happened decades ago, and the specifics of PIRGIM's efforts to get funding will be different this time around. What doesn't seem to have changed, however, is the slope of the hill PIRGIM will have to climb. Throughout the entire time there was chapter on campus, PIRGIM had to fight for its funding. Its members worked constantly to persuade students to pay the PIRGIM fee. In 1981, they mounted a failed campaign to return to the negative check-off fee system. In 1983, they scrambled to combat a petition of 7,000 students opposing PIRGIM. Funding seems to have taken priority again. Students for PIRGIM chair Carolyn Hwang told me that although some work is ongoing on a hous- ing campaign, most of Students for PIRGIM's work has been stalled because of the campaign to gain funding for a chapter. I support having a PIRGIM chapter on campus, and I'd be happy to see a couple dollars of my fees every term go to the group. But I even more strongly support having an active group fighting for students' rights in Ann Arbor. MSA, with its bureaucracy, its cautiousness and the ever-pres- ent suspicion that its members are only involved to pad their resumes, doesn't exactly seem to be doing the job. Even if PIRGIM is successful in establishing a chapter on campus, its activities will be limited by the necessity to avoid lobbying due to MSA's tax-exempt status. They couldn't, for instance, lobby the Ann Arbor City Council to do some- thing - anything - about the housing situation. A separate student fee for PIRGIM independent of MSA might be able to avoid this, but it's anyone's guess if the regents would go along with it, or for how long. I can't fully gauge whether the benefits of hav- ing a full chapter would outweigh the potential restrictions on lobbying and the struggles that will be necessary to get and keep funding. By continu- ing to operate as an independent student group, though, Students for PIRGIM wouldn't have to worry about getting student fee money or avoiding lobbying, and could still accomplish a lot. Having a PIRGIM chapter would probably help with local issues, but the main thing that's needed is for stu- dent activists to invest their time, and lots of it. Unlike many student groups focused on broad idealistic goals, PIRGIM - whether as a chapter or a regular student group - could bring about real improvements for students. There are some extraordinarily dedicated activists involved in Stu- dents for PIRGIM, and I'd hate to see all their effort used up learning tax codes and MSA bylaws. S S 0 Zbrozek can be reached at zbro@umich.edu. LETTER TO THE EDITOR GEO president updates 'U' community on negotiations The Graduate Employees' Organization has been in contract negotiations with the University administration for the past four months. We would like to ensure that you are aware of the current state of negotiations, remind you that our current contract has expired and appeal to you for support. Negotiations are currently stalled, and GEO mem- bers may conduct a one-day walkout on March 24, followed by a possible extended strike beginning April 4. Below, I address the main issues of conten- tion between our union and the administration. Graduate employees are central to the teaching and research that make this a world-class university. Graduate student instructors do more than a quar- ter of the teaching at the University, but our total compensation package costs only about one-tenth fellowships between $16,000 and $24,000.). Our current wage proposal makes significant progress toward this goal, bringing us from the $14,000 per year we currently make to $18,000 per year by the end of the contract in 2008-09. The administra- tion has responded with an offer of approximately $14,250 (2005-06), $14,500 (06-07) and $14,900 (08-09) - likely not even keeping pace with cost- of-living increases in Ann Arbor. The adminis- tration claims that all employees should receive similar percentage raises; however, this practice has resulted in relative stagnation for those at the lower end of the pay scale and ever-increasing sal- ary gaps between employees. The 2 percent raise taken by President Coleman this year comes out to $9,500 - $2,000 more than I'll make for teach- ing Sociology 389 this entire semester. Childcare: Many people don't realize that about one-third of GSIs are parents, and you can imag- ine what a struggle it is to support a family on Health care: Perhaps most disturbingly to our members, the administration has refused to guarantee that our health care coverage and costs will remain consistent over the life of the contract. While offering to guarantee zero premiums, their team is refusing to discuss any limits on how high co-pays will climb or what services will be covered. In addition, the administration has been unwilling to remove current discriminatory exclusions on chronic mental health treatment and transgender ser- vices, or to protect our TBLG members' ben- efits from legal challenge. GEO members want to resolve these matters through negotiations and are frustrated by the lack of real progress at the table. We ask for your sup- port in bringing these negotiations to resolution. Contact the provost and president, sign up for a picket shift or check www.umgeo.org for updates and more ways to get involved. GEO members 0 '' E r .. t-f rr+croEe +ii+S y Isla h t^t!7 1tX ., a. ri cx slc i^ act rr