4A - The Michigan Daily - Monday, April 10, 2006
OPINION
1thl £itijpu mafigd
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 is a little like
a reformed alcoholic
taking little drinks
- pretty soon, you
have a real problem on
your hands."
- John Czwartacki,former key communi-
cations strategist for House Republicans,
reflecting on the trend of big-government
spending in the Republican Party, as reported
yesterday on washingtonpost.com.
KATIE GARLINGHOUSE llo.S ARREST
I
HEY OROnMY 0RLS
Thf EVA4&OE
0156 - RO CTONACTr
16 UP ITNEA.fAND YOU
64OW YOUR tC-~O
EITfON U006 MADE WITH
100% RALWOVERN1.
5PPLIEWSECIES ARE
l MTER SORDER
T I Alll
I tAND~EL
OLP CE$AC WY
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.
,}
x'Y f
*^ftW not Nwtl J
3 I
Beyond the diploma 0
SUHAEL MOMIN No SURRENDER
Each time I open to
The New York Times op/
ed page and read one of
David Brooks's pontifica-
tions on the moral values
that define America, I
shudder. So it's with great
horror that I find myself
wishing to do the exact
same thing. I apologize.
it's an unacknowledged fact that, as students
at this University, we're extremely privileged.
Just count the number of BMWs with out-
of-state plates, North Face fleeces and Motorola
RAZRs on South University Avenue any given
night, and it's impossible to avoid the conclusion
that this University is filled with richer-than-aver-
age students who have supportive parents. I'm not
trying to pass a value judgment - just to make a
point.
We're lucky.
Sure, we all worked hard to get here, but - speak-
ing in averages - we're all beneficiaries of fate, of
fortunate circumstances beyond our control.
Of course, higher education has always been
a province of the privileged. By historical mea-
sures, modern society is doing fairly well on the
Egalitarian Index. Considering that higher educa-
tion is now considered a birthright for children of
the upper-middle class, society has come quite far
from the days when ninth grade was a luxury.
By most standards, this "democratization" of
higher education is a good thing. Economically,
it makes perfect sense. When Gov. Jennifer Gran-
holm and journalist Thomas Friedman extol of the
values of higher education as a policy tool, they're
not speaking ignorantly.
It's not that an undergraduate education imparts
a great deal of useful knowledge; getting a B.A. in
economics does not make you an economist any
more than getting a B.S. in biochemistry makes
you a doctor. But a bachelor's degree of any type
does make you richer - by, according to one esti-
mate, more than $20,000 a year.
I'm not going to elaborate on the economic
upside of higher education. Only a fool would
ignore the role of higher education in any eco-
nomic and development policy.
Regrettably, however, this mode of thinking
has encouraged us to view higher education as just
another commodity to be bought and sold.
Today, a "liberal education" isn't about improv-
ing one's intellectual identity. It's about creating a
better future for oneself. The vast majority of stu-
dents come to the University because in exchange
for roughly four years' tuition money, it supplies
each of us with a priceless basket of benefits. It's
a win-win business transaction that, among many
other things, increases expected lifetime earnings,
allows aspiring lawyers to attend law school and
makes each customer's future brighter.
A century ago, it wasn't that way. A college
degree wasn't the mere precondition for financial
prosperity that it is today; anyone rich enough to
attend college in 1890 was probably independently
assured of a cushy lifestyle. Wealthy parents sent
their sons to college because a liberal education
was necessary to become a well-rounded; respon-
sible, respectable citizen. Read the text inscribed
over Angell Hall: Education wasn't considered a
means to money - it was a means to guarantee
responsible civic participation.
All too often, in the rat race to get ahead, we
forget the original goal of public higher educa-
tion - of higher education as a whole. Higher
education is still a province of the privileged,
but now - because we're not all princes,
Carnegies and Rockefellers - it's easy for us
to forget our privilege.
I'm not radical enough to suggest we drop our
career plans in favor of public servitude. But it's
sad that our current state of affairs - the dog-eat-
dog competition we have to deal with every day
- has blinded us to goals unrelated to personal
gain. It's a race I've participated in, but that doesn't
make me happy - or OK - with it.
At the risk of sounding cynical, I'll venture
that many, many students "get involved" because
they want to pad resumes. We've all registered for
- and then slept through - an otherwise-worth-
less class (e.g. Statistics 100) solely to improve our
grade point average. Every pre-anything student
has courted a dull professor with an impressive
title just to secure a recommendation letter.
Every student has asked the all-consuming
question: "What the hell am I going to do with this
degree?" Answer 1: Get a job. Answer 2: Go to
graduate school.
Perhaps we should to take a break from getting
ahead.
The old aristocratic ideal of noblesse oblige
implied that the fortunate ought to use their privi-
lege to advance the common good. Carnegie built
libraries; the Kennedys and Rockefellers dedicated
themselves to government; Bill and Melinda Gates
have focused on eradicating vicious diseases.
Most of us will never achieve anything close
to what those families managed. But we will still
be privileged, and that will still imply a level of
responsibility. We need to look beyond what a
college education can do for us as individuals
and remember that, a long time ago, college was
about molding young men (and some women) into
responsible citizens and enlightened leaders.
Perhaps it's time to take our privilege and use it
to improve something besides ourselves.
Momin can be reached at
smomin@umich.edu.
VIEWPOINT
Skyboxes destroy the Michigan tradition
BY ROBERT LUPTON
I am writing in opposition to the University's
proposal to install luxury boxes at Michigan Sta-
dium. I have read the letters published in both the
Daily and the University Record from faculty
members opposing the measure, and I think it is
necessary to provide an additional perspective on
the issue. While I ultimately agree with the faculty
members' position, I believe their sentiments are
a bit overwrought. For example, I do not believe
that luxury boxes represent an insult to the Univer-
sity's "egalitarian tradition" or a division between
elites and the "great unwashed" masses. However,
they do represent a severe threat to fan solidarity,
as well as to the aesthetic, simple collegial char-
acter of the stadium - both of which have been
instrumental in building the great tradition that is
Michigan football.
The separation of a certain portion of the fan
base from the rest is less about highlighting eco-
nomic differences than it is about a general loss
of solidarity. At any home game, there may be as
many as four or five generations of past, present
and future Wolverines in attendance, and to have
them all together in the bleachers is a testament
to the great solidarity of Michigan fans across the
country. Watching a 75-year-old man climb up and
down 50 rows of seats each Saturday lends insight
into what it means to be a devoted Michigan fan.
Sitting in seats they have held since the Kennedy
Administration, these elders provide a perennial
example of Michigan tradition, particularly to a
younger generation experiencing the marvel of
Michigan Stadium for the first time (a generation,
I might add, that is all the more likely to become
loyal and "active" alumni). It is this shared devo-
tion to the game and to the University, rather than
in raucous behavior or coordinated color schemes,
that puts force behind our game-day crowds. Seg-
menting the fan base would threaten to break the
great bond between us and lessen the overwhelm-
ing presence of the crowd.
The Michigan emblem at midfield, the block
lettering scrawled across the marshmallow-lit-
tered end zones, the winged helmetsthe fight song
and the immortal voice of Howard King have all
contributed to making football Saturdays in Ann
Arbor the quintessential American sporting expe-
rience. However, there is no better representation
of the legacy and tradition of Michigan football
than the sight of 111,000 fans sitting and standing
together cheering for the Maize and Blue. Who
does not remember his first visit to Michigan Sta-
dium? Who does not walk through those arched
entrances and still feel a rush of excitement as the
single, uninterrupted bowl opens before you? From
Bennie Oosterbaan to Bo Schembechler and from
John Wangler to John Navarre, millions of Michi-
gan fans have felt that same rush. There are no
advertisements on the scoreboards, no corporate
markings on the field and, to this day, no luxury
boxes to obscure the image of a purely amateur
experience now 128 years in the making.
There is no denying the economic advantages
of installing luxury boxes. Indeed, Penn State
University and Ohio State University have recent-
ly enjoyed short-term revenue boosts because of
them. I say let those universities sacrifice tradition
on those luxury altars of greed if they wish. This is
the University of Michigan, where the republican
simplicity of our tradition is the Michigan Differ-
ence.
Lupton is a LSA junior.
4
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Send all letters to the editor to
tothedaily@michigandaily.corm.
The only moral issue
about MCRI is racism
TO THE DAILY:
Often I find myself ideologically opposed to
the opinions of the Daily's editorial board, but
Thursday we found something we could agree
on (The morality of MCRI, 04/06/2006) - the
importance of discussing the morality of the
Michigan Civil Rights Initiative. If you feel it
is moral that you should be rewarded or judged
on the basis of the color of your skin, then
you are an opponent of the MCRI. The Daily
believes that this public university should con-
tinue to arbitrarily reward certain individuals
based on their skin color, under the guise of
working for some greater good. I personally
stand committed to the ideal that the greater
good is a country that stops concentrating
on the exterior features of individuals and a
society that evaluates each other solely on the
o-nntnnt rof 0nrh ntharo' tbcnnchtc ntnnc nnrl
talking points and stereotypes in discussing
contentious public debates. The moral choice
is for reporting that does not misrepresent and
mislead the public (such as the Daily's cover-
age of MCRI). The moral choice is to demand
public education that provides equal oppor-
tunities for every American child, regardless
of socioeconomic status or region. The moral
choice is to hold our communities account-
able for their own successes and failures
and not look to the federal government for a
scapegoat. The moral choice is to work on the
real underlying problems of long- ingrained
educational, social, racial and class-oriented
distinctions that continue to segregate our
society today, by breaking down superfi-
cial judgments and fostering real legitimate
respect for a diversity of opinions.
The values that this public University will
hold should be determined by the voters this
fall. I personally hope Michigan chooses to stop
valuing racism and superficiality by voting for
away. In doing so, they attacked legal gun
ownership among students. I could argue for
gun ownership as a basic Constitutional right,
which every American has the obligation to
protect. Going on the assumption that most
people either don't agree with me or just don't
care, I'm going to make a practical argument
for guns.
If you don't want to own a gun, that's your
choice. No one is going to make you carry.
However, you must realize that just because
you might have a gun or your neighbor might
have a gun, you are safer. The last thing any
criminal wants to do is break into a home
and run into someone responsible enough to
protect their rights and everything they have
worked for.
This reason alone is enough to show that
the University's unconstitutional ban on
legally possessed firearms is a bad idea. I
have nothing against the Department of Pub-
lic Safety, but it is several minutes away.
Tht' alngu time to someone hin~, attacked.
Editorial Board Members: Amy Anspach, Andrew Bielak, Kevin Bunkley, Gabrielle D'Angelo,
Whitney Dibo, Milly Dick, Sara Eber, Jesse Forester, Mara Gay, Jared Goldberg, Mark Kuehn,
Frank Manley, Kirsty McNamara, Suhael Momin, Rajiv Prabhakar, Katherine Seid, Gavin
Stern, Ben Taylor, Jessica Teng, Rachel Wagner, Jason Yost.