4A - The Michigan Daily - Monday, April 3, 2006 OPINION be Aroiritt au igj DoNN M. FRESARD Editor in Chief EMILY BEAM CHRISTOPHER ZBROZEK Editorial Page Editors ASHLEY DINGES 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 It would be political suicide to ignore (that) there's 11 million people, illegally undocumented, who are trying to work and add value to our country." - Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), on his expecta- tions that the Senate will approve an immigration reform bill passed last week in the Senate Judiciary Committee, as reported yesterday on nytimes.com. KATIE GARLINGHOUSE Hlous E ARRHET 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. I I The paradox of affirmative action SUHAEL MOMIN NO SURRFNDFR hinking about affirmative action? Think harder. With the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative on November's ballot, we're in charge of s the program's future. That power cannot be understat- ed: Our votes will directly 'y affect the futures of thou- sands - tens of thousands - of Michigan high school students. As individual voters, we must be absolutely sure of what we believe before we exercise such power. I stress this because I believe affirmative action is probably the most morally ambiguous public policy question to ever come before Michigan's populace. Its not possible to have an unqualified position for or against affirmative action without deliberately or subconsciously ignoring certain arguments sur- rounding the issue. It is an undisputed fact that affirmative action gives certain individuals a leg up based on their race. On its own, that tidbit should give pause to affirmative action supporters. Allowing employers, universities and government agencies to treat different races dif- ferently is a radical step - one that must be meticu- lously justified. Sure, the U.S. Supreme Court - Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, to be more exact - felt there was a compelling state interest in diversity. That legal inter- pretation allowed affirmative action to squeak around the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. But just because it's legal doesn't mean it's morally sound: Should we be comfortable with employing racial preferences wherever there is a compelling state interest? Is it ever morally sound to allow the government to treat different races differently? Supporters of affirmative action say yes. The Uni- versity swayed federal courts by arguing that there are educational benefits that stem from racial diver- sity. But as any University student can attest, those benefits are severely limited in practice; self-segre- gation is a rampant problem on this campus. Fur- thermore, the importance of "diversity" has allowed conservatives to argue for "affirmative action" in faculty appointments; an op-ed contributor to The New York Times wrote last week how her college gives admissions preference to men to ensure gender diversity. All this begs the question: What level of diversity is enough? What mix of gender, race, sexual identity, etc., is ideal for an elite university? Any meaning- ful answers to those questions will likely take the form of unconstitutional quotas - and raise a whole new series of questions about which groups deserve "affirmative action" and which ones don't. The far more persuasive moral argument in favor of affirmative action questions a fundamental assumption of our free society: Has the playing field ever been level? This is where opponents of affirma- tive action sometimes tune out. All too often, they frame the debate over affirmative action as a prejudi- cial question: Why should a less-qualified minority receive admission over a white student? Taken at face value, that question seems honest. Looking solely at numbers, affirmative action allows an underrepresented minority with lower test scores and an inferior grade point average to gain admis- sion over a "better-qualified" white or Asian appli- cant. Without any further examination, this seems to be very strong evidence against affirmative action. But numbers lie. With enough money, anyone can pay for a better SAT or ACT score; The Princ- eton Review and Kaplan go as far as to guarantee it. Because of the way Michigan's public schools work, the state's best-off district spends almost twice as much per student than the, state's poorest. Suburban schools routinely have more expansive social, athletic and extracurricular activities, better classroom facili- ties, better teachers, newer books and smaller class sizes than their urban counterparts. Money matters. If birthplace and financial status are giving some babies an automatic step up, affirmative action lev- els the field for everyone else. Facebook groups like "I got in because of my grades" ignore the logical conclusion that suburban children - as a factor of their more privileged births - should have higher grades, more extracurricular opportunities and bet- ter test scores. If MCRI passes, it will significantly limit the number of underrepresented minorities who qualify for admission. Factors completely out of any child's control - birthplace, social class, etc. - will lock certain students out of Michigan's top institution. That, on its own, should give supporters of MCRI reason for pause. At this point, anyone reading this column should have found lots of problems with all my arguments; I have. But there's simply not enough space to discuss, even briefly, all the potential arguments, counterar- guments and counter-counterarguments. Instead, I'll interpret the sheer volume of debat- able points as evidence for my original assertion: It's impossible to have an unqualified, unambiguous and morally sound view on affirmative action. If anyone thinks they have one, its merely because they're not thinking hard enough. Momin can be reached at smomin@umich.edu. What MSA should believe The Michigan Daily and The Michigan Review will periodically run a point-counterpoint on issues of the day. This installment will discuss the role of political ideology in the Michigan Student Assembly. a ', >~ LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Send all letters to the editor to tothedaily@imichigandaily. Daily misrepresents Warren's accomplishments To THE DAILY: The Daily is wrong to assert that no Democratic candidate for state rep- resentative has earned the support of students (Dems gear up for state rep pri- mary, 03/30/2006). As a charter mem- ber of Students for Warren, I have seen firsthand how Rebekah Warren's hon- esty, hard work and respect for students in this community have translated into precisely what the Daily declares does not exist - a "groundswell" of support for her candidacy in the form of student group endorsements, a Facebook group with 70-plus members, and dozens of students volunteering their time and talents to her campaign. Students sup- port Warren not just for her positions on affirmative action, single-payer health care and education - though she is right on all these issues - but for her willingness to work for them with tireless enthusiasm. Just as significant, however, is what City Council member Leigh Greden (D-3rd Ward) has done to lose the trust and support of students. Why does Greden call his support for the couch ban the "biggest mistake" of his tenure on city council when just this past December, the Detroit Free Press reported that Greden was considering revisiting the ban in the fall? But the biggest mistake of Greden's council tenure wasn't supporting the couch ban: It was repeatedly trying to manipulate the legislative process by attempting to pass anti-student measures during the summer months, when few students are in town to voice their opinions. The couch ban is only one example: Last July, Greden supported a parking reso- lution affecting student neighborhoods. City Council passed the resolution with barely any student input, leading Mich- igan Student Assembly President Jesse Levine to call the Council's actions a "slap in the face" to the student com- munity. What will it be this summer, Mr. Greden? That's the issue that truly divides these candidates: Rebekah Warren has shown us she is the candidate we can trust. Bob Mushroe LSA sophomore Obscenity stands between Daily and greatness TO THE DAILY: On the front page of the Friday's Daily, the headline read: Cockblocked (03/31/2006). Not only was this head- line offensive to myself and numerous other students, but it is part of a grow- ing trend of lack of journalistic integrity shown by the Daily. With the takeover by the new staff, there have been repeat- ed expletives, innuendos and fluff stories peppered throughout each paper. When I first arrived on campus, I saw the Daily as a reliable source of news and I'm sure that for many students, it is the only source of news. Therefore, to see this recent decline in the integrity and content of the paper is most troubling. If the Daily wishes to exude the integrity it once held, I suggest a change in this trend - if not for its own sake, then for those students who are avid readers of this once. stellar publication. Charles Gocken LSA freshman le iidau1agog BY CHRISTOPHER ZBROZEK Students need an advocate in this town. With a city council that bows to hom- eowners' associations and a University administration that often puts the wishes of alumni donors and prominent faculty before students, it's clear that our inter- ests aren't exactly at the top of the agenda. The Michigan Student Assembly could be the advocate that students need, but I fail to see how it can fill that role effectively without drawing on political ideology. The Students 4 Michigan/Students First dynasty of nonideological umbrella parties, which has dominated the assembly for most of my time at the University, arguably hasn't accomplished much. One reason for this is that it's difficult to articulate what students' interests actually are without reference to a political framework. Instead of real debate over the values that should guide MSA's advocacy of student interests, candidates for MSA too often focus on any zany idea that seems sure to win votes: make Entree Plus the only valid currency in Ann Arbor, put three Taco Bells in the Union or maybe bring Ludacris to campus to spark a dialogue about diversity. With goals like these, it's no surprise that voter turnout in MSA elections has been in the single digits at times. Turnout doubled in the last election, however, with the debut of the Mich- igan Progressive Party and the Student Conservative Party. These parties offer students something that S4M/S1 has never had - a coherent platform centered on a political concept of what student government should do. I might not have agreed with much of what SCP presidential candidate Ryan Fantuzzi had to say, but he had the right approach when he characterized his opponents as a party with radical ideas, a party with bad ideas and a party with no ideas. Elections should focus on who has the right combination of ideas and experience to lead - not on whether a party has enough friends in enough student groups to ensure its victory. Having a range of political ideologies to choose from increases the compet- itiveness of MSA elections, providing a check on the corruption inherent to a one-party machine and hopefully weeding out those only interested in student government to bolster their law school application. An underlying set of ideals can help the ruling party order its priorities and guide individual members of a particular party to act in concert toward common goals. An ideology also gives students a clearer view how candidates would react to a situation not already covered in a list of talking points hastily posted on a party's website. Because MSA should act as an advocate for students, it will need to express students' concerns to other powerful figures, whether in the Flem- ing Administration Building or in Lansing. MSA is often ridiculed for pass- ing resolutions on issues beyond its immediate control. These resolutions, however, often serve an important purpose in defending students' interests. A piece of S4M propaganda during the last election, for instance, criti- cized MPP for a "symbolic resolution attacking Congressman Joe Schwartz." Besides misspelling the name of Rep. Joe Schwarz (R-MI), S4M ignored the fact that Schwarz, despite being the chair of the University's Alumni Association, supported legislation that made it more difficult to get student aid. Sure, MSA doesn't control Congress, but how is access to student aid not a student issue? I have little sympathy for the argument that low voter turnout renders MSA unable to speak for the student body. I know of no other election where one can vote from a dorm computer in one's underwear anytime dur- ;nu atwo-..da vnrind. Beside ident concerns don't o away ist because All things that involve exertions of power, especially in the appropriation of money, are inherently political. After this regression to Political Science 101, it's important to keep in mind that despite the fact that three-quarters of students didn't vote in the most recent election, and despite the question- able importance and relevance of the Michigan Student Assembly, it is still fundamentally a political body. Witness this in the most recent election. When the incumbent Students 4 Michigan faced credible opposition for the first time in years from the two new parties, the Michigan Progressive Party and the Student Conserva- tive Party, turnout skyrocketed from abysmal levels to proportions almost respectable by standards of most student government elections. The threat to the power endowed to S4M gave students a new stake in student govern- ment, and turnout evinced that. A post-mortem of the election reveals a bit more complexity about the most recent elections and raises serious questions about the role MSA should take on campus. S4M is essentially apolitical; it encompasses students with a number of political backgrounds under a single platform focusing on stu- dent interests. It is interesting that in this past election, both parties posing a challenge fit along a dichotomy more associated with national politics than campus politics. And it's even more interesting that they lost. MPP was promising in its inception precisely because it seemed to desire to eschew the kind of politics that its name would imply. But it quickly devolved into something else, with focus on issues such as housing (with very vague solutions) and more fiscal responsibility on MSA (while it proposed spending $20,000 on starting a PIRGIM chapter). SCP was identifiably, well, conservative. Its platform railed against the suspension of the University's con- tract with Coca-Cola Company and called for "less political BS" on MSA, but the Fantuzzi-Turner ticket never developed any comprehensive agenda within their conservative ideology as to how they would govern. If they did have such a plan, they should have shared the secret with the rest of campus. Perhaps it is not coincidental that the moments when the S4M-dominated assembly has attracted the most scorn and controversy have come when it has embarked on territory outside of its correct sphere of influence. Efforts to vote on a resolution encouraging divestment from companies with money in Israel attracted the most attention and controversy from the campus. Similarly, ill- conceived efforts to sponsor a lobbyist on behalf of students (one barely inter- ested in student concerns, at that) via PIRGIM attracted concern and scorn from some quarters, including the Review's editorial page, for moving ever farther from the interests and the actual purview of MSA. Of course, last fall's now-infamous Ludacris concert was the major catalyst for these recent contested elections. The concert, which lost $20,000 of MSA money, was emblematic of everything wrong with student government: wasteful spending under the misused justification of "promoting diversity" that extended beyond the fundamental province of MSA. When SCP candidates promised "less political BS" on campus, they might have been on to something. But unfortunately, much like MPP, their traditionally dichotomized politics might have largely been the cause of their downfall. These parties may have presented sexier, politicized platforms that turned heads, but they still couldn't attract as many votes as S4M - a party whose candidates' politics were as hard to decipher as the platform they represented. If any of these parties were anywhere near intelligent, they would take a lesson away from this election THE MICHIGAN REVEW lR BY MICHAEL O'BRIEN 0 Editorial Board Members: Amy Anspach, Andrew Bielak, Kevin Bunkley D'Angelo, Whitney Dibo, Milly Dick, Sara Eber, Jesse Forester, Mara Gay, J, berg, Mark Kuehn, Frank Manley, Kirsty McNamara, Suhael Momin, Rajiv1 Katherine Seid, Gavin Stern, Ben Taylor, Jessica Teng, Rachel Wagner, Jaso 21 iosi.