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.