4C -The Michigan Daily - Monday, April 17, 2006
OPINION
REFLECTIONS
0
Since its creation, the Daily's Editorial Page has been a
forum for diverse opinions on key issues of contemporary
concern. As the Class of 2006 prepares to graduate, we offer
a look back at some of the most important topics addressed
during its time at the University through the writing of
seniors who defined the last four years of page four.
NOTABLE
QUOTABLE
COLIN DALY THE MICHIGAN DALY
Oct. 25, 2005
4 4In no way,
shape or form should
we conclude that the
civil rights mission is
complete."
a
0
i
',^ 0
a
m. o
oA
0
t sa
e
a p
z
PE DAL.-
a
- Bruce Gordon; president of the NAACP,
about the death of Dr. Martin Luther King
Jr.'s wife, Coretta Scott King, as reported on
Feb. 1, 2006 by The Washington Post.
Squandering the mandate
SUHAEL MOMIN No SURRENDER
istory does not
view as "great"
those presidents
who presided with little
challenge over periods
of prosperity. It is only
those who successfully
led this nation to tri-
umph in the face of dire
difficulties that achieve
'"greatness Following
Sept. 11, 2001, President
Bush had a chance to distinguish himself in this
manner and join the ranks of Washington, Lin-
coln and F.D.R. His speech on Sept. 20, 2001
to a joint session of Congress was undeniably
the best of his career. The "cowboy from Texas"
sounded like John Kennedy when he pledged
that "the advance of human freedom - the great
achievement of our time, and the great hope of
every time - now depends on us ... We will rally
the world to this cause by our efforts, by our
courage. We will not tire, we will not falter and
we will not fail." In the days following Sept. 11,
as members of Congress stood on the steps of
the Capitol singing "God Bless America," they
threw out partisanship to celebrate their common
love of this nation. When the Germans played
the American national anthem at the Branden-
burg Gate and the French newspaper Le Monde
headlined (in French) "We are all Americans,"
they stood in solidarity, political and spiritual,
with the United States. For the first time in its
history, NATO invoked Article 5 of its charter:
An attack on one member is an attack on the
alliance at large. Domestically and internation-
ally, Bush was handed the mandate his adminis-
tration had previously lacked. He was given the
public support and political capital necessary to
lead the fight for the fundamental human values
binding the free world.
As an initial, defensive response to Sept.
11, the United States embarked on a course
of action against the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Around the world, Bush did not need to active-
ly seek support for this war - American allies
gave it freely. Militarily, financially and politi-
cally, the major alliances entwining the free
world held firm. Even the American public was
fully committed - for the first time since Viet-
nam, we were willing to accept significant mil-
itary casualties to secure a victory. The Bush
administration was not merely leading; it was
securing its place in history.
Three years after the attacks, however,
domestic and international unity is merely a
memory. Since 2001, the international coalition
behind the "war on terror" has faltered, and the
bipartisan domestic consensus behind home-
land security has deteriorated into shameless
electoral strategizing. The Bush administration
turned its post-Sept. 11 mandate into a false
justification for a radical agenda. The attacks
have provided a rationale for the war in Iraq
and explained the weak economy, the gaping
budget deficits and even the need for additional
tax cuts. He took his incredible opportunity to
lead the nation and create a great legacy ... and
passed it up.
Instead of continuing this war against known
terrorists in Afghanistan, Bush embarked on a
mission to invade Iraq. Asserting that Saddam
Hussein possessed dangerous weapons of mass
destruction, the administration presented mili-
tary action in Iraq not as a possibility, but as an
inevitability. Even though the United Nations
sent weapons inspectors to Iraq to find and dis-
mantle WMD, they were not allowed to com-
plete their work. Even though Bush pledged
to consult the United Nations, he deemed it
irrelevant when the Security Council appeared
unwilling to authorize war. The rhetoric of "ral-
lying the world" to defend human freedom was
forgotten; the chance to unify the free world in
a fight for liberty was lost.
Even at home, Bush's politics obliterated
any vestiges of post-Sept. 11 political unity.
During the 2002 midterm elections, the GOP
unabashedly exploited the attacks for elec-
toral purposes. In Georgia, it attempted to
link Sen. Max Cleland, who did not support
the president's homeland security bill, to
terrorists. Cleland's opponent, Saxby Cham-
bliss, ran TV ads that compared Cleland, a
veteran who lost three limbs in Vietnam, to
Osama bin Laden, the Sept. 11 mastermind.
Leading Republicans and conservative pun-
dits regularly exploit patriotism as a par-
tisan emotion when they make the absurd
argument that liberals love this country less
because they don't support the president. In
spite of a campaign promise to "unite, not
divide," Bush has worked closely with the
Republican-controlled Congress to remove
Democrats from discussions of energy poli-
cy, defense policy, tax policy and health care
policy. The administration has inexcusably
taken the immediate post-Sept. 11 notion of
reaching across aisles and working with all
Americans for the betterment of this nation
and put it in a trash can.
When voters head to the polls on Tuesday,
they will hold a referendum on the Bush presi-
dency thus far. Whether he wins or loses, how-
ever, history will view these past three years as
nothing more than a missed opportunity. Few
presidents are ever given the type of mandate
that Sept. 11 gave George Bush, and fewer yet
have wasted it.
- Oct. 27, 2004
Momin is an LSA senior and last year's Daily
editorial page editor.
VIEWPOINT
Academic freedom: A historical perspective
BY JASON Z. PESICK
All educational institutions strive to pro-
vide the best educational experience for both
students and faculty. Well, at least that's
the impression created by administrators,
spokesmen, the court system and idealists.
As a freshman, I have memories of myopic
high school administrators and teachers, with
the expressed goal of educating the young
to become active citizens, trampling on the
basic principles of such an educational expe-
rience. In a sense, they wanted us all to be
great citizens without allowing us to experi-
ence citizenship.
University spokesmen constantly tell stu-
dents and parents that the University has the
ideal environment to foster a rich educational
experience. And to some extent that is true.
There is a free-flowing exchange of ideas on
campus and students have a number of rights
that simply do not exist in many other educa-
tional settings.
Judging by how smoothly the University
sailed through the recent Divestment Confer-
ence, the expression policy does not seem to
impinge on freedom of expression. Assistant
General Counsel Donica Thomas Varner said
that the goal of the University's expression
policies is to set forth guidelines to allow for
the productive exchange of ideas for protes-
tors and for speakers. Varner went on to say
that the University does not seek to create a
"politically correct" environment or establish
acceptable speech guidelines. These are all
the things that an idealistic college student
wants to hear. But, Varner went on to say that
freedom of speech is a right that has to be
used responsibly.
What does that mean? Well, it's not entirely
clear. The University has a sexual harassment
policy that is vague. The definition includes
"conduct which results in negative effects
even though such negative effects were unin-
tended." It goes on to say that an incident will
be deemed sexual harassment "if a reasonable
person ... would consider it sufficiently severe
or pervasive to interfere unreasonably with
academic performance or participation ..."
This policy is especially frightening in
light of some incidents in the University's
past. For example, in 1988, the Office of
Affirmative Action issued a speech code that
specified prohibited conduct. Prohibited con-
duct included saying, "Women just aren't as
good in this field as men." There was actually
a section titled "You Are a Harasser When..."
Jokes about gays and lesbians were prohibited
as well as displaying the Confederate Flag on
a residence hall door.
Based upon what I know about American
government, Americans enjoy various rights
such as the Freedom of Speech, the Freedom
to Bear Arms and so on. I have not yet heard
about the right to never be offended. Thank-
fully this code was ruled unconstitutional in
federal court.
The University received national atten-
tion in 1992 when portions of an exhibit on
prostitution were taken down because they
were perceived as offensive. Supposedly
Law Prof. Catherine MacKinnon, who has
been named "censor of the year" in the past
by the ACLU, was behind the altering of the
exhibit. MacKinnon said the incident was
"a witch hunt by First Amendment funda-
mentalists who are persecuting and black-
listing dissident ... as art censors." While
the ACLU may have used the event to target
MacKinnon, her desire to create a politi-
cally correct environment in which no one
is ever offended is irresponsible from an
educational standpoint.
And then of course there was "English
317: How to be Gay." Prof. David Halperin
offered this course it explore gay culture and
the impact it has had on literature. Regents
candidates, many of whom were running for
re-election that year, were livid, and mem-
bers of the state legislature tried to take away
University funds. These politicians were in
a sense trying to gain control over what is
taught here, impinging on academic freedom
and educational exploration so that they could
win an election.
Supporting the right of people to express
themselves does not mean supporting what
they say. Academic freedom is the freedom to
explore ideas. It allows individuals and orga-
nizations to say what they think and challeng-
ing them when they're wrong.
- Oct. 31, 2002
Pesick is an LSA senior and last year's Daily
editor in chief
6I
March 20, 2003
The Iraq war begins
Dialogue, debate essential as Bush takes U.S. to war
September 7, 2005
The second vacancy
Bush should ensure diversity on high court
The war has begun. Now that President Bush has
brought the United States to the point of no return in
Iraq, many a misguided voice will tell us that it is too
late for doubt, discussion and debate. They will tell
us to bite our tongues and rally behind our troops,
that articulating dissent of any kind in times of war
histrionics and vitriol to rule the day. Democracy is
made to work through clear-headed discussion and
debate, not through hot-blooded vociferation. It is easy
on days like today to forget this. We must not allow the
intense images and urges running through all of our
minds to wrench us away from rational debate.
As if there wasn't enough tension in politics last fall
during the presidential election, students return to cam-
pus on the precipice of political history in the making,
this time surrounding the U.S. Supreme Court. Not only
has it been over 10 years since the last vacancy on the
Court, but not since 1971 have there been simultaneous
the nomination process from how it appeared earlier this
summer. As a former clerk of the late Chief Justice Wil-
liam Rehnquist, it can be inferred that Roberts will con-
tinue his predecessor's conservative ideological legacy,
bringing the core issue of the judicial nomination season
back to the forefront - the future balance of the Supreme
I