4A- The Michigan Daily - Thursday, April 13, 2006 OPINION j1h SOW 41V 'A. tuan P-1ww' Awr - - - - t(du KIMBERLY LEUNG'Ti T'E TAK-.-uiT iBox 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 4 ' It is important for candidates to heed all the complaints and follow election guidelines." - Yale College Council Vice President Marissa Brittenham, on the fact that all five candidates for student council president violated cam- paign rules or sent spam e-mails, as reported Tuesday by yaledailynews.com. Perhaps last month's Michigan Student Assembly elections inspired the Yale candidates. WHAT'S BETTER THAN A SUM- MER mN A2? HANGNG our wim DALY OPmOw. E-MAIL GALAD@UMICHDU. k$'" \ 01 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. Liberal nation ALISON Go Wi Wio\ATV, ES THE WX'ATCHIMEN f he were in a grave, David Horowitz would be rolling over in it by now. The whiny conservative windbag, whose list of the 100 most dangerous pro- fessors in America is really a list of the 100 most non-neoconser- vative professors, would mourn the loss of another victim to the wicked, liberal academic machine. That victim: me. Sometime between now and when I first moved into Bursley Residence Hall freshman year, I turned into a liberal. I caught the Bush- hating, affirmative action-approving, Commu- nist-loving bug - with all its shameful stigma. And just like herpes or hepatitis, it is, as far as I can tell, permanent. How could this happen? How could all my par- ents' warnings of "thinking like a liberal, but liv- ing like a conservative" not gotten into my head? How could tax cuts for the rich, strict tort reform and a $423-billion deficit not convince me to slap that "W '04" sticker on my BMW? The first obvious answer is those danger- ous professors I've been taking classes from; I've been intimidated into liberal submission. They've brainwashed me with their facts - fill- ing my head with information that really won't help me get into a useful field like medicine or engineering. Instead I'm too busy worrying about the inequalities in the world - worrying about all the people who've been screwed over and trampled on, then told to get up on their own, unmarred. And you know what's even worse? I'm a lib- eral, and I'm one who wants to do something about it. The latter problem is the Daily's fault. Through subliminal messages in the crossword puzzle, the Daily has made me think I can make some change. It might be through journalism - just look at what the sports section did with the chop/claw - or it might be through hand- dirtying work, but somehow I got some youth- ful idealism that my parents hope I get over and never get back - sort of like chicken pox. When I first came to Ann Arbor, the Univer- sity was embroiled in a couple big-deal Supreme Court cases challenging the constitutionality of its affirmative-action policies. If you haven't picked up on this before, I come from a pretty rich, pretty white Detroit suburb, where the sense of entitlement hangs heavy in the air. Kids don't dream of going to the University; they have it as their back-up. And I was not immune to this feel- ing of entitlement. I worked my ass off in high school, and I took all the right tests - it's just not fair that some unqualified black/Hispanic/Native American kid should get a free ride. Right? Well, shame on 18-year-old me and everyone else who hasn't had their brains infected with the horrors of history. I'm not talking about the obvi- ous - the policies of segregation, the KKK or Indian reservations, which are bad enough. But I'm talking about the stuff they don't tell you about on the History Channel or PBS - the stuff that is complicated and not obvious and that doesn't have interesting photos to go along with it. Stuff like kicking blacks out of their homes to build a white-friendly highway; or invading and occupy- ing countries decades before Iraq under the guise of "spreading democracy"; or trumpeting minor- ity rights while setting the women's movement back a half century in one fell swoop. Living in this city has made me the cliche that conservatives both fear and deride. The Univer- sity hasn't just infected me with what to think, but has also burdened me with the obligation to think. In the meantime, I became a liberal - and now serve as a cautionary tale. For you wealthy conservatives ready to send your impressionable kids into this well-known liberal bastion: Watch out. If your sons and daughters are careful - wearing masks and avoiding truth - they might be able to stop it before it starts. So far, I haven't heard of a cure. But then again, I hope they never find one. *1 Go can be reached at aligo@umich.edu. VIEWPOINT Moving on from'Michigamua' Fixing our immigration policy AARON KAPLAN LIFE DOESN'T GET AN A jsaw a protestor on the Diag Monday olding a sign that read, "No Human Being is Illegal." That's a nice sentiment,but what does it mean? That we should end the legal immigra- tion process and simply allow all interested par- ties to come to the Unit- ed States? Is patrolling our borders inhumane? If legal vs. illegal is a false distinction, shouldn't undocumented immigrants receive public benefits as a matter of human rights? The answer to all these questions is no. Bor- ders are not ephemeral. Determining who should receive the rights of a citizen is a core function of any sovereign nation's government. Globaliza- tion notwithstanding, America is still a sovereign nation, so determining who is an American is the responsibility of the president and Congress - not Vicente Fox, not the National Council of La Raza, and, in light of recent nationwide dem- onstrations, certainly not individuals who came to this country outside legal channels. This should not be considered a hard-line posi- tion, but I'm still somewhat uneasy about it. I'm uneasy because I like immigrants. I'm proud of my own ancestors' journey to the United States, a feeling shared by most Americans. I enjoy meet- ing international students. I know that the vast majority of immigrants are law-abiding, hard- working strivers who see America as the land of opportunity. I'm glad that with all our problems, people still want to come here. Plus, I understand why so many illegal immi- grants cross the border. Making the minimum wage is unattractive to most Americans, but it is often many times what a laborer could earn in the Mexican countryside. As long as immigration laws are erratically enforced, the payoff for mak- ing it is tremendous. The recent marches for illegal immigrants, however, leave me cold. The marchers, who want citizenship for all illegal immigrants, have mobi- lized to protest a recently passed House bill that would strengthen border security and force busi- nesses to verify their workers' legality, but would not grant legal status to any of the 11 million illegal immigrants currently in the United States. grants who are worried that American citizens might start enforcing their laws. Successfully avoiding deportation for a few years should not entitle one to citizenship and its associated benefits, but some illegal immigrant advocates want just that. In California, 62 percent of voters opposed granting drivers' licenses to ille- gal immigrants,and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill that would have allowed them. The Senate recently considered a bill that would have allowed illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition at public universities. The idea that a Mexican citi- zen living illegally in Detroit could pay less at the University of Michigan than an American citizen from Bowling Green is ludicrous. Still, I don't blame illegal immigrants them- selves for the current problem; I blame business. Employers often look the other way and accept a mutually beneficial situation - the illegal worker gets better wages than he'd receive outside the country, and the employer doesn't have to pay the even higher wage that would attract American workers. Anyone who says illegal immigrants are tak- ing jobs Americans won't do is just looking for an easy way out. Yes, Americans don't want to pick fruit for $5.15 an hour, but being a garbage man is just as undesirable. Sanitation departments, though, fill their jobs by paying high wages. With- out illegal immigrants, Florida oranges would be more expensive, but claims that the economy would collapse are frivolous. We should already be forcing businesses to verify that their workers are legal and increasing the fines levied against those who don't comply. Instead, the issuance of such fines has declined sharply, from nearly a thousand in 1991 to 124 in 2003. This is absurd. Since potential illegal immigrants have such a strong incentive to cross the border, federal policy must limit this incentive as much as possible to curtail future illegal immigration. As for those already here, mass deportation is impractical, and a House bill provision that would make it a crime to offer even humanitarian aid to illegal immi- grants goes too far. But illegal immigrants are not oppressed masses being denied their fundamental rights. They're here voluntarily, and their Ameri- can-born children will be citizens. That's good enough. By SAM WOLL For more a century, members of the Mich- igamua senior society have strived to leave Michigan a better place than they found it. Stick- ing to its core value of service to Michigan, the group has played an important role in contribut- ing to both the tangible and intangible aspects of this campus, without calling for recognition or reward. This organization has historically repre- sented a diverse cross-section of student life and leadership at Michigan; moreover, the organiza- tion has arguably been more inclusive and more representative of diversity at Michigan than any other campus group. Unfortunately, opposition by various campus groups in recent years has painted a different picture of Michigamua. Upon its founding in 1902, Michigamua adopted a symbolism that - when viewed in retrospect today - is hurt- ful to many in and out of the Native American community. For this reason, the group replaced Native American symbolism nearly two decades ago with new traditions that more directly reflect our common bond, Michigan. While discarding more than 80 years of tradition was difficult, we knew it was the right thing to do and appropri- ately moved on. Two decades on, however, it pushes the bound- aries of fairness to deride the organization as racist for .symbolism that had been historically accepted by the University, the campus com- munity and even Native American members of Michigamua. However, we are aware that to some this symbolism has caused pain, which is very much regrettable and was never intended as a defining attribute of the organization. Simi- larly, though "Michigamua" is not of Native American origin, the name now resonates with earlier portions of the group's history. While this issue has been used by many in today's commu- nity to feign political outrage, we are aware that there are those that have felt genuine hurt. As an organization, we regret that this unintentional consequence has occurred. Therefore, our orga- nization continues to seek resolution and healing with the affected community, and we hope that a constructive dialogue can begin. Furthermore, the issues surrounding the name have detracted the campus community from working toward a better Michigan, and therefore, it is time for us as a group to move on from it. In the time that has passed since 1989, Mich- igamua has continued its tradition of leadership for the University while honoring its agreements. Sensationalized reporting and unjust conclu- sions have replaced true understanding of what has transpired over the last two decades; that, in turn, has kept the entire campus away from deal- ing with the real issues. With honest and open dialogue, we are confident that many of the accu- sations leveled against us through the years will be recognized as misunderstandings or fabrica- tions. Yet we also understand and are prepared to hear the real hurt that is the underpinning of those deeply involved. It is in good faith that we have disclosed our membership in order to begin this process. It is time that voices on all sides of the issue make a real commitment to uncovering truths and resolving our differences without the biases still being harbored. In the end, we feel that having a group commit- ted to serving Michigan above all else is impor- tant. Our past practices have shown that limiting our membership to 25 seniors best effectuates this mission; cultivating strong relationships and dialogues among such varied campus leaders allows us to build a better tomorrow. We repre- sent a diverse cross-section of campus, and while we certainly do not claim to be the only effective student leaders on campus, we are proud to join an organization that has completely dedicated itself to our great institution. None of us would have agreed to join any organization that in any way demeans other members of our community, nor could we commit our time to an organization not dedi- cated to enhancing the quality of life for the entire University. We believe in the University of Michigan and have faith that we can all, with good will, move forward together in a joint pursuit of a better Michigan for genera- tions of Wolverines to come. Woll is a LSA senior and a member of the last class of "Michigamua." 0 0 VIEWPOINT Independents will decide MCRI 01 BY ANDREw LASKowsK As all of us know, this November affirmative action will essentially go on trial, as Michigan vot- ers will decide whether to continue these types of programs in the future. In the past, conservative ideas have hit home with Michigan voters, who recently approved a gay marriage ban and defeat- ed a measure to legalize euthanasia. Therefore, it is clear opponents of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative will have to work to change minds before November's elections or affirmative action in Michigan will be no longer. The current debate surrounding MCRI can be pigeonholed into two arguments. The liberals will tell you that the educational playing field is unequal, that blacks are disadvantaged in compar- ison to whites and that affirmative action will level the playing field, fostering diversity and opportu- nity , T'I-.crnar.,tvc will ~tall tvnn that nffirmn- To begin: How can we even be sure that affirma- tive action will work? Will it level the playing field? How will we be able to measure its success? Will it improve black high school test scores, lower the black/white income gap, lower black poverty numbers - and if so, by how much? How long will it take to notice these improvements? These questions must be answered, because independent voters do not live in a world of rhetoric and theory, but rather a practical world where everything can be measured. If there is no way to measure affir- mative action's impact on society, they will not support it. Assuming the above questions are answered to the independent voter's satisfaction, others still exist. Is the cost of the program worth its benefit? Once admitted, how will the tuition bill of the minority student be paid, assuming the student, being disadvantaged, cannot afford it? Once on r'a rnn. c therre a ire nnamnvinnrity nrrnramnQ tions explicitly and define affirmative action for the Michigan voter. So far, she has remained relatively silent, allowing her opponents - namely MCRI - to define the issue. When she does speak for affirmative action, she uses rhetoric such as diver- sity, opportunity and equality - words that sound good in a speech, but that have no demonstrative meaning to the independent voter. What do diver- sity and equality really mean, and how can they be measured? At this point, one may ask why independent voters seek specific answers and ignore politi- cal rhetoric. Consider the following scenario: Suppose affirmative action exists for another 15 years, but poverty levels, average black income and black poverty remain the same. The same theoretical arguments will still exist in liberal and conservative circles,-but the true measuring stick of affirmative action's success will be determined by~ there Qtatiticrv In other wours-there miict he A I I