4A - The Michigan Daily - Monday, December 12, 2005 OPINION Cie Birtigtt Dil 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, MI48109 tothedaily@michigandaily.com Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily's editorial board. All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their author. NOTABLE QUOTABLE 44'For 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, my colleagues and I are killing monsters." - A 23-year-old Chinese gamer who goes by the online name Wandering. He plays the beginning levels of video games and earns virtual currency to later sell to American gamers, as reported Friday on nytimes.com. MICHELLE BIEN Tiin EA~N AitcIiivrs YNWANT MT IN R AM~d~AS UNWAANTED) 0VERA&UNDA,4CI 0 Shooting straight, playing straight SUHAEL MOMIN NO SURRENDER When Presi- dent Clinton enacted the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, he intended it as a liberal- ization of the military's previous outright ban on homosexuals, closeted or not. In the years since the policy was implemented, however, its flaws have become apparent. Even though it allows homosexuals to serve in the mili- tary, it forces them to live double lives. Instead of making the military more accepting of homosexu- ality, it has codified a bias against it. Homosexual- ity is fine in the military - as long as nobody has to deal with it, hear about it or even acknowledge its existence. Apparently, there's nothing wrong with a gay soldier - so as long he (or she) pre- tends to be straight. But instead of fighting the policy itself, law- yers are arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court to invalidate the 1996 Solomon Amendment - a powerful few paragraphs that allow the federal government to deny federal funds to any educa- tional institution that the Secretary of Defense deems to be obstructing recruitment efforts. Thirty-four of the nation's top law schools have decided that because "don't ask, don't tell" is anti- gay, the military is a discriminatory employer that should not receive a place at campus job fairs. The implicit suggestion here is, of course, that the military can continue its policy - just so long as it keeps it well away from the Ivory Tower. Why, if the policy is antigay, is public attention not focused on the policy itself instead of a periph- eral issue? If there's a perception that the military is engaging in discrimination, why are supposedly progressive activists fighting - on shaky legal ground - to keep discrimination off college cam- puses instead of fighting the discrimination itself? The fact is that "don't ask, don't tell" margin- alizes gay and lesbian soldiers as somehow infe- rior. It actively discourages them from military service and forces them to hide their identities. It forces them to choose between serving their country and living truthful lives. It embraces the archaic belief that uncloseted homosexuality is bad, and that the military cannot operate under the influence of gayness. It passes value judgment on a lifestyle variable that has little to do with personal choice and even less to do with military competency. Far from liberalizing the military's stance toward homosexuality, it formalizes the right of the federal government (the military) to fire employees (soldiers) solely on the basis of sexual orientation. Even the argument that openly gay service members will make heterosexual service mem- bers uncomfortable presupposes the worst of both groups. It assumes that all gay soldiers will be uncontrollably drawn to their heterosexual com- rades, that they will have no choice but to ogle their fellow soldiers in the shower, that they will force their gayness on innocent heterosexuals. It also assumes that straight service members will be unable to tolerate gay service members, that heterosexual soldiers will simply be unable to shoot straight under the influence of homo- sexuality, that heterosexuals will be unable to get over the psychological barrier of lying (in nightclothes!) just beds away from an opportu- nistic homosexual. Yet openly gay soldiers serve without difficul- ty in other NATO militaries, and American sol- diers serve without difficulty with soldiers from other NATO countries. Something tells me that if the American military started accepting open- ly gay soldiers, it'd survive. Something tells me it'd be better off. Firing 10,000 competent gay soldiers - at a time when ongoing recruitment efforts are spectacularly ineffective - doesn't come without its costs. Of course, allowing openly gay people to serve in the military would be controversial. There's not a doubt in my mind that James Dobson would be upset. But radical right-wing family activists are always upset. It was once controversial to have integrated black-white military units. It was once controver- sial to allow women and men to live together in college dorms. It was once controversial to even allow women in the military. Not so miraculous- ly, society got over it. Women serve in the mili- tary, all military units are racially integrated and - believe it or not - students manage to live in co-ed dorms without much difficulty. It's time to move past "don't ask, don't tell." It's a problematic solution to a problem that doesn't exist. It codifies irrational years of homosexuality. It hurts the military - it hurts the nation. Instead of fighting to keep it off col- lege campuses, lawyers and activists should be fighting to keep it off the books. Momin can be reached at smomin@umich.edu. 0 0 0 VIEWPOINT Addressing the need for a unified studentvoice BY CLAIRE BEYER, MARLOWE COOLICAN, ADAM WHITE, JUSTIN BEAN, BECKY TARLAU, ADAM DOSTER AND KATIE AWOOD It is common knowledge that universities across the country exist not only as institu- tions of higher learning, but also as a leading research base for both the federal government and private corporations. With this knowledge, we as students must then ask where priority is being placed - to the pursuit of research grants and publication or to students and the education of future generations? Simple math makes it clear that education is no longer the top priority of the University, state or federal government. According to the Univer- sity's own documents, in the year 2001, funding from tuition increased $183,712,124, state fund- ing decreased $48,829,700 and federally sup- ported research skyrocketed $201,940,000. These statistics demonstrate a clear shift away from student interests. Does this system provide a high-quality education that is acces- sible to everyone? To answer this question, it is necessary to examine relevant statistics rather than to make subjective claims. In order to ensure a quality education, qual- ity instruction is essential. Therefore, one would expect the University to prioritize the hiring and support of full-time faculty. This, however, is not the case. Fifty years ago, all classes were taught by tenure-track and tenured professors; now the figure is only 50 percent. By hiring and underpaying part-time GSIs and lecturers, the University saves money (savings that are not reflected in our rising tuition rates), but this does not help to attract and retain high-qual- ity, motivated faculty. Additionally, instruction accounts for only 17 percent of the total budget at the University, and the Lecturers' Employee Organization says that 5 percent of tuition goes toward nontenured faculty, who teach 25 per- cent of undergraduate credit hours As a public institution of higher education, the University should be accessible to a wide range of young people from all communities and back- grounds. The student body should reflect the demographics of the broad community it serves. Again, the numbers reveal that this is not the case. Columnist David Brooks wrote in The New York Times that last year, University students coming from families earning more than $200,000 out- numbered students coming from families earning less than the national median - roughly $53,000. This inequity spans beyond income. To cite one example, black Americans account for 14 percent of the state's population but compose only 7 per- cent of the University's student body. According to an article in the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, the graduation rate for black students at the University is only 64 percent, while the graduation rate for white students is 87 percent. This is one of many statistics that demonstrate the unequal treatment of poor students and minority students within universities. That same article finds there are only five other high-ranked univer- sities in the country with black student graduation rates under 70 percent. This analysis shows a pattern of decline in quality, accessibility and diversity at the Univer- sity. A solution to these problems is necessary. As students, we are in a position to bring change to the public higher education system, but only if we can organize ourselves around the com- mon interests we as a student body all share - ensuring that our education is accessible, of the highest quality possible and not superceded by university obligations to nonstudent interests. Based on these concerns, a new student group has recently been established: the Michigan Organization of Students. MOS exists to represent student interests in higher education and democracy at the city, state and national levels. While a global view is taken into account, the greatest potential for change exists locally. For this reason, MOS focuses primarily on pertinent local and cam- pus issues. At the University, MOS seeks to ensure that the administration's top priority is to provide a quality, accessible education in a diverse, democratic environment. The key to MOS's legitimacy is mass par- ticipation. By simply adding one more student to the growing list of members, MOS becomes a more powerful tool in advocating for stu- dent demands. The more members MOS has, the better reflection of the wide range of stu- dent opinions and concerns the organization's agenda will be. The principles themselves are noncontroversial. Affordability should not limit anyone's access to our university. The diversity of the student body should reflect the diversity of applicants. Students should be the priority for an institution that exists to educate, and all voic- es should be given fair and respectful consider- ation and a timely and reasonable response. We have a right to demand the quality education we are paying for. All students have the right to feel safe, respected and welcome at the University. MOS asks for the participation of all our fel- low students because we all have something at stake. Anyone and everyone interested in taking control of his education must take a stand and show the University that college is about more than being funneled through the education sys- tem. Through cooperation, we have the potential to make our university a better place for every- one. For information on how to become a mem- ber, go to www.mospower.org. The authors are members of the Michigan Organization of Students and are writing on its behalf. a0 I LETTER TO THE EDITOR Is abortion reaUy a 'life- changing' procedure? To THE DAILY: I am writing in opposition to Friday's dis- sent editorial in the Daily (Why have Parents?, 12/09/2005). I found the authors' opinions Editorial Board Members: Amy Anspach, Andrew Bielak, Reggie Brown, John Davis, Whitney Dibo, Sara Eber, Jesse Forester, Mara Gay, Eric Jackson, Ashwin Jagannathan, Theresa Kennelly, Mark Kuehn, Will Kerridge, Rajiv Prabhakar, Matt Rose, David Russell, Brian Slade, John Stiglich, Imran Syed, Ben Taylor. their daughter's abortion, just as they must consent to other surgeries. However, I doubt that anyone would classify root canals as "life-changing procedures." Also, I doubt that any parent would deny his child a root canal, whereas many parents may deny their child the right to an abortion because of religious ters if they were to get pregnant. How would parental notification benefit any of these young women? I find it ironic that our society deems preg- nant young women incapable of making their own "life-changing" decisions, yet the same society assumes that these young women are i I I