4 - The Michigan Daily - Tuesday, September 12, 2006 OPINION 'Chic atchilgan ID ttilg DONN M. FRESARD Editor in Chief dwmft I EMILY BEAM EMILYBEAM EFFREY BLOOMER CHRISTOPHER ZBROZEK Editorial Page Editors Managing Editor EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SINCE 1890 413 E. HURON ANN ARBOR, MI 48104 tothedaily@michigandaily.com NOTABLE QUOTABLE In truth, it is a struggle for civilization. -President Bush, during last night's address, referring to the need to create democratic societies in the Middle East countries, as reported by nytimes.com. A Stay out of our labs Funding scheme would invite state meddling Turn and face the change IMRAN SYED ne might not expect the Mack- inac Center for Public Policy, Michigan's own far-right free- market think tank, to care much for economic equality. A plan the Macki- nac Center recently proposed, how- ever, seeks to equalize state funding per student at all public universities in Michigan. The legislation is ostensibly meant to make higher education fund- ing more transparent. Its main effect, however, would be to harass the state's research universities for trying to do their jobs - and threaten the Univer- sity's status as a world-class research institution. The Mackinac Center's proposal has begun to gain support in some impor- tant quarters. State Rep. John Stew- art (R-Plymouth), chair of the state's House Appropriations Subcommittee for Higher Education, is said to favor the change. So does Central Michigan University President Michael Rao, whose institution receives a third of the per-student spending that this Uni- versity does. As for the University, the plan could drive tuition up even higher - by as much as $9,070, according to the biweekly political newspaper Inside Michigan Politics.That would bring in- state tuition to nearly $20,000 - down- right absurd for a public institution.. The proposal would allow the state's research institutions to supplement per-pupil funding by requesting addi- tional money for research graduate education. That stipulation is at the very least an unnecessary hindrance, and it could reduce state funding for the University as well. Furthermore, it could lessen the desirability of research positions at the University by harming the prestige of the University. Top professors and researchers might choose institutions offering more sta- ble funding over a University where research proceeds only at the whim of the state Legislature. The proposal would allow the state Legislature to withhold additional funding from universities in order to restrict research deemed "wasteful" or programs thought unnecessary. While perhaps appealing, past experience sug- gests such a provision would encourage political meddling in the University's affairs. A few years ago, for example, the Republican-dominated state Legis- lature attempted to shut down an Eng- lish course that focused on gay male literature. The move was unsuccessful, but University faculty and researchers can only expect to encounter similar obstacles if the Legislature is asked to approve controversial projects such as stem-cell research. The University's constitutional autonomy may ultimately prevent such direct micromanagement. Still, the specter of the University hav- ing to sue the state to force an intrusive Legislature to back off is hardly a happy prospect. Michigan desperately needs to increase the number of its residents obtaining college degrees, and to do so, it will need to make its universi- ties more affordable. While making the higher education funding process more transparent might make clearer the link between declining state sup- port over recent decades and skyrock- eting tuition, the Mackinac Center's proposal seems a poor approach. At best, it might make less prestigious universities slightly more affordable while forcing research universities to boost their tuition and waste resources dealing with legislative interference. At worst, it could leave the state's pub- lic universities equally mediocre and unpopular - perhaps not an undesir- able outcome to a free-market outfit eager to reduce the role of government on all fronts. 4 4 4 The worst thing that anyone r; who wants to change the world can do is remain oblivious to the change that's already happening. As we stand now five years removed from the day that changed everything, inching fur- ther into a world that may very well be more dangerous now than it was then, our leaders remain curiously unaware of the very menace they seek to defeat. Last month, as the Middle East erupted once more, President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice maintained that they were not interested in seeking a return to the previous status quo - what they dubbed a "false" peace in the region. They wanted a changed Middle East, and even if it takes a full-scale war to get there, they argue it's worth it in the long run. Perhaps they're right. In a land where peace eludes everyone from Churchill to Clinton in the 20th century - and pharaohs, Roman emperors, popes and prophets before them - it's probably safe to doubt the vitality of any new cease-fire. But while the president wails and moans about his desire for a new Middle East, he contin- ues to ignore the changes that have already brought a new Middle East about - granted, it isn't the one he would have wanted. The beginning of this story, like the beginnings of many stories these days, is terrorism. Sure, the attacks five years ago changed America. They made our nation more vigilant, alert and wiser inat least some ways. But we became these things not out of understanding, but simple, primal - and manipulable - fear. And so we remain today, five years later, still afraid, still believing that you can only be with us or against us. We remain on guard, but still don't really understand why. The instinc- tive response that kicked in immedi- ately following Sept. 11 never gave way to understanding. There was no chance of stepping back and tak- ing in the situation because we were told that this was the first of many attacks, and so we are continually reminded today. But while taking this overly simplistic worldview undoubtedly makes it easier to conduct war, it prevents us from understanding that which we fight. Thus, even as a new Middle East emerges in the very land our troops patrol, we fail to see its implications. The 20th century's Middle East conflicts were nationalist in nature - religion has always been the cover that region's clashes, never the sole cause in modern history - with leaders like Moammar Gad- dafi of Libya and Yasser Arafat of Palestine leading the Arab world's assertion of political legitimacy through militarism. But those lead- ers are now diminished, and while war remains in the region, it cannot be dealt with by the same tactics employed in the past. The fact remains that the region has been permanently altered since America invaded Iraq, since the demiseofSaddamHussein's secular regime and the resurgence of Shia power there and in Iran. Everyone realizes this fact - except Amer- ica. Even as the president remains hellbent on bringing democracy to every nook and cranny of the region, one of its most stable exist- ing democracies (Lebanon) has been devastated. No one denies Israel's right to defend itself, but after weeks of fighting, even Israel now realizes that the stakes have changed and the fight is different. Anti-Americanism and anti- Semitism still exist in the Middle East and in other parts of the world - that much hasn't changed - but the reasoning, motives, tactics and ideals of those who fight are a world apart from even just a decade ago. The destruction of Hezbollah is in the best interests of both Lebanon and Israel, but the war Israel con- ducted reflected a failure to under- stand the changed stakes. Arab nationalism is dead; Hezbollah fights not for Lebanon, not for the Arabs (Arab nations have actually condemned Hezbollah), but simply for its own political legitimacy. Five years is much too long for America to childishly cling to the "us vs. them" worldview that's thrown any semblance of "hearts and minds" prudence far into oblivion. The glob- al war against terrorism is muddled enough to boggle even Napoleon's mind; there is no continuity among its various parts. We must learn not to generalize about a region, nation or group based on past experiences, or in order to fit them into our vague existing definitions. Since Sept. 11, President Bush's aim has been not simply to fight our enemies but to bring about a world order that redefines America's place. His stubborn refusal to negotiate and unwillingness to acknowledge the political actors his war has brought into being assures that new place won't be where we want tobe. Syed can be reached at galad@umich.edu. VIEWPOINT Equality for Michigan universities LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Send all letters to the editor to tothedaily@michigandaily.com. By NICK GLAUCH There were many shocked expressions and raised eyebrows over the Daily news article Pro- posal could cost you more (09/07/2006). For those of you who missed it, Jack McHugh, a legislative analyst from the Mackinac Center for Public Pol- icy, has written a proposal that would drastically change the face of higher educational funding in our state. What McHugh is proposing is a change to the way funding for Michigan's universities is determined - from alump sum to a per-pupil system. This system would direct state funding to institutions based upon the number of students that attend each university, with a set value for each student. Currently, the Uni- versity receives a disproportionate amount of money per pupil from the state - in fact, a very dispropor- tionate amount, more than three times the amount per pupil as Central Michigan University. What is it, exactlythat makes a Wolverine worth three times as much asa Chippewa? There are many reasons a Wolverine should oppose this plan, but before anyone jumps at a cut to our funding, students must put aside our alle- giance to this great school and realize that the cur- rent system is hurting our state more than all the University's graduates will be able to help it. We must recognize the damage the current system is doing to the rest of Michigan and the terrible dis- parity that is evident between the institutions that educate our fellow Michiganders. This University is simply not big enough to educate every Michi- gan resident who wants a job in the 21st century, so we must give other state institutions the tools to fulfill the unified goal of all public education. The state is facing a major economic collapse. The manufacturing industry that has driven Michigan to its historical wealth is coming to a screeching halt, and in order to avoid becoming the worst state in the Union, we must jump into an economy that can be sustained through the 21st century. The only way to create that economy is through high-tech industries, maintained by an educated workforce. Sadly enough, there just aren't enough classrooms in all of Ann Arbor to deliver this workforce to our state. McHugh's proposal is the only way we can deliver this 21st-century workforce across the whole of Michigan. By equalizing funding, we will give schools like CMU, Grand Valley State and Lake Superior State the funding they need to provide Michigan with high-quality education that will allow the state to return to an era of eco- nomic strength and widespread prosperity. While the adoption of this program will spell the end of some classes here at the University, I refuse to believe that a change in our funding will bring the Maize and Blue to an end. This University will cut some less effective programs, fine-tune its spending and come out stronger than before. As a result, other public universities will receive a drastic increase in funding and will be able to provide the necessary funding to offer both the basic programs that they lack and the programs that Michigan residents will need to compete in the new global economy, to a student base that cannot be reached under the current sys- tem of funding. If we simply ignore McHugh's proposal, the University may continue to prosper and be ranked among the best in the country, but we will watch as the rest of the state slides into further economic recession and more and more Michigan families go without work. Washtenaw County may continue to succeed, but elsewhere we will see eligible high school graduates kept from quality classrooms because they cannot afford to leave Michigan. We must change course. We cannot allow this University to continue to prosper at the expense of the rest of our state. Expanding access to quality educational institu- tions for more Michigan's students is the only way to bring about an economic revival in the state, and those institutions can only be built if we go ahead with McHugh's plan for a drastically dif- ferent higher-level educational funding program in the state. Glauch is an LSA freshman. Prop 2 would end discrimination TO THE DAILY: In response to Andrew Yah- kind's viewpoint (Proposal 2 is bad for blue, 09/07/2006): That affirmative action creates diversity is simply an illusion. The national dropout rate for individuals being penalized for their race is 18 percent, while the rate for those receiving preferential treatment is 39 percent. The end of racial preferences has been proven to dramatically reduce dropout rates. We only need to look to states that have banned racial preferences. According to a recent article by the San Francisco Chroni- cle, 13 California universities, including the University of Cali- fornia at Berkeley, have ranked in the top 20 universities nation- wide in granting undergradu- ate degrees to minorities. The key is to accept minority stu- dents based on merit, not color. Regarding legacy preferences, Ward Connerly has been a cham- pion against legacy preferences at Berkeley, and we hope that the University will end this type of discrimination as well. Vote yes on Proposal 2. Dan Shuster School of Public Health The letter writer is a co-chair of Washtenaw County's MCRI board. Choose activism, not Facebook and apathy TO THE DAILY: What a stirring article Christo- pher Zbrozek wrote in response to the Facebook outcry (A Face- book profile of our generation, 09/08/2006). It inspired even me - an activist already, some may say - to want to do more than click around online networking sites. His comparison to past causes, which are so similar to what our generation faces, cut through any apathetic excuse for not going out to change the world. 0 That's not to say that a few Students Organizing for Labor and Economic Equality kids and a handful of environmental- ists are the only ones on campus accomplishing great things. I realize that like Zbrozek's other skillfully constructed sentences, that one was meant to increase the sense of urgency about the University's overall lethargic stance toward progressivism. However, walking through Fes- tifall, one couldn't help but notice the activist groups, full of people who will succeed - if you show up and help them out, of course. Forget for a minute that I'm a member of SOLE; I'm speaking as a student concerned with the state of affairs Zbrozek men- tioned. Thus, I want to acknowl- edge that if it wasn't for all those who are working to improve our campus community, there is no way SOLE would be on its way toward achieving a Sweat-Free University. I look forward to shaping the University with the talented leaders we have here. Aria Everts LSA junior Looking at Sept. 11 through another Lens TO THE DAILY: Ah, September 11, 2001. I remember it well. I was a senior undergraduate at the University. As I reflect on that day, five years later - older and wiser - I can say that, yes, it was sad people died. But remember, despite all the sympathetic pro- paganda garbage the government blasted across the airwaves yes- terday, you are still more likely to be struck by lightning than be a victim of a terrorist attack. Furthermore, the real tragedy is that the Sept. 11 attacks were used as a justification for invad- ing Iraq and Afghanistan (con- trary to international law) and used to justify billions of dollars of increased and unnecessary defense spending. Remember, even the current administration has admitted that there was no connection between Iraq and al- Qaida. Five years of living in fear, tens of thousands of Iraqi and Afghan dead - not to mention the deaths of thousands more Western troops - are not justi- fied by the Sept. 11 attacks. Nor have they ensured we are any safer then we were back then. They have only served to further alienate the American populace from the rest of the world and, of course, make U.S. military con- tractors billions of dollars. And to all those who believe that Sept. 11 is now a solemn event fit only for quiet reflection - and therefore should be pro- tected from political debate - I'd like to point out that our country was founded on principles of the freedom of speech, among other things. The idea that anyone who would criticize the government at a time like this is unpatriotic, turns the notion of what it means to be a good American. Those who blindly supported the Patriot Act and those who called for blood - any blood - after the attacks are no dif- ferent from the type of sheep that would blindly follow Hitler, Stalin or Mao. Whether you like it or not, the nation's response to the attacks - blindly lashing out at Arabs - meant the end of the notion that America is a nation unlike any before it. It will only end up like many other empires in history that haven fallen before. In denying that princi- ples of justice and law apply to this country as we continue to seek vengeance on Osama bin Laden, al-Qaida and terrorists in Iraq and around the world, we have invalidated the moral basis for our actions and ensured that we will not be viewed as inno- cent victims of a terrorist act but rather as a manipulative and capriciously violent people. David DiMaggio Alumnus d I a I EVER DREAM OF HAVING YOUR NAME IN THE PAPER? COME TO THE DAILY'S MASS MEETING TO LEARN MORE. TONIGHT, 8 P.M. 413 E. HURON, BETWEEN STATE AND DIVISION (OR GOOGLE IT)