4A - The Michigan Daily - Wednesday, September 20, 2006 OPINION e atchluttn ]Dotg DONN M. FRESARD Editor in Chief EMILY BEAM JEFFREY BLOOMER CHRISTOPHER ZBROZEK JEFiR E diLor 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 iI Martin is watching you letic department contract won't friend anyone In an effort to regulate the conduct of its athletes even more carefully, the Athletic Department recently required student athletes to sign a contract stating that their involvement in social networking websites like Facebook must uphold the same standards of "honor" and "dignity" as expected from them in other situations. Such vague references the contract makes to honor and dignity could potentially result in infringement upon students' First Amendment rights. The department should instead allow students to make their own decisions within legal limitations, given that there are already policies in place to punish the unlawful actions. The Athletic Department's new policy went into effect August 1; violations of the vaguely worded contract may result in punishments including suspension from the team and "reduction or non-renewal of any athletic scholarships." Considering that the Athletic Department aspires to hold ath- letes to a higher standard as representatives of the University, something like the new mandate was all but inevitable. The policy appears to be part of the University's ongoing efforts to raise "Facebook awareness." Just last week, for example, the department gave a 90-min- ute presentation entitled "Welcome Face- book: Enter at Your Own Risk," in which it highlighted the pros and cons of joining an online social network. Included in this overview were several examples of inap- propriate profiles, featuring drugs, nudity and alcohol. While such educational forums are sure- ly advantageous to student-athletes, the newly instituted contract appears to do little more than compromise their rights. Under state and federal laws, as well as existing University and athletic department poli- cies, students can already be reprimanded for engaging in illegal activities, as well as behavior that violates University or athletic department policy. Further action taken for posting incriminating information would be redundant and unjust. Presumably, the Athletic Department wrote the contract not to provide a sec- ond means of punishing bad behavior, but because there are other aspects of a Face- book profile that may violate "standards of honor and dignity" without breaking any laws or codes. Without a clearer definition of "dishonorable," however, athletes have little way of knowing what whether they are at risk of disciplinary action. The contract infringes on students' rights by curbing their ability to express themselves online. The regulation of student behavior on the Internet is a growing trend at univer- sities nationwide. The University of Ken- tucky, for example, told 500 of its athletes to erase material on their Facebook profiles that is "not in the university's best interest." Additionally, Kent State University student athletes must not only limit public access to their personal profiles, but also allow coaches and counselors to access and monitor their personal profiles. In practicing this brand of censor- ship, however, universities seem more concerned over student athletes drawing attention to their inappropriate actions than with the actions themselves. This shouldn't be the case. Instead of imple- menting a vague and restrictive contract, the department should focus on the well- being of students athletes by educating them properly and respecting their free- dom of expression as long as they stay within the boundaries of the law and Uni- versity and athletic department policies. NOTABLE QUOTABLE It's a game that the U.S. government needs to play about 13 million times." - Kyle Bristow, chair of Michigan State University's chapter of Young Americans for Freedom, expressing his support for the University of Michigan chapter's "Catch an Illegal Immigrant Day," as reported yesterday by The Michigan Daily. The loss of loyalty EMILY BEAM fifteen heavy legacy costs, a bleak future. their employees to keep up sales. years But these are fairly new trends. As They not only consciously built this ago, recently as 1995, the Big Three was brand loyalty in their employees, everyone in still the Big Three, holding a 75-per- but they assumed everyone else in Metro Detroit cent market share. Today that's down America would choose their cars in was tied to to just more than 50 percent, with the same way. the Big Three. Toyota first taking DaimlerChrys- As Ford and GM are only start- Most of my ler's spot as number three, and now ing to realize, this loyalty has friends had poised to knock down Ford from its already weakened dramatically, a parent or at number two position. as customers focus more on prod- least a relative With both Ford and GM frantical- uct and less on producer. But the connected with the automotive indus- ly treading water to avoid bankrupt- actions both companies must take try. There were Ford families, and cy, it's not worth arguing whether to make it through their current cri- there were GM families. (There were Ford is so much better than GM, or ses - cutting costs wherever pos- Chrysler families too, but they didn't vice versa. Both companies are los- sible - will be the final blow. The count, at least not at my house). ing sales and have announced mas- mutual respect between employer My dad sells cars for Ford, and he sive restructuring plans in an attempt and employee that forms after a was sure to pass on his brand loyalty to return to profitability. Automotive lifetime of employment was what to me. I knew well before I started News reported Monday that talk created Ford families. With heavy kindergarten that Ford was good of an alliance between the two has layoffs and wage cuts, this security and GM was bad. My grandparents come up, perhaps even a merger. will not survive, and neither will drove Fords, my parents did, and I Such an arrangement would signal the loyalty. would too one day. not only the end of an era, but the loss Brand loyalty isn't dead entirely. General Motors made bad cars, of each company's identity. It seems The cult of iPod worshipers is alive ugly cars, dangerous cars that did unlikely in the near future - besides and growing, and many are full-out poorly on crash tests. Ford made the convincing Congress that a merger Apple devotees. Lots of Coke drink- awesome white Aerostar in my drive- wouldn't violate anti-trust legisla- ers would choose water over Pepsi. way with that blue racing stripe, and tion, the companies don't exactly But unlike the Big Three during the Ford paid for it, too. have complementary product lines; American automotive industry's hey- The Ford-GM rivalry was a con- both are excellent in selling trucks day, it's a different loyalty, one that stant companion growing up, and as and sports utility vehicles, and rath- comes from really liking the taste of far as I was concerned, there were no er pathetic lately in designing a car Coca-Cola or the click of the iPod's other manufacturers. In elementary model that sells. click-wheel. If Ford and GM can school, I counted the number of Ford But even without merging or take advantage of that sort of loyalty and number of GM vehicles parked forming some sort of alliance, the and compete on product, convinc- in my subdivision - an easy task, rivalry is over. What Ford and GM ing customers that the Ford Focus, as nearly every car was one or the had was something special, the last the Chevy Impala or some yet-to- other. I was proud of my neighbors of its kind - a rivalry fueled by be-imagined model is worth their when Ford won. I doubt it would fare customers' lifelong loyalty, passed devotion, they may have a chance so well now. down from generation to generation. of coming out all right. Otherwise, Where as 1 once saw the Ford- From the instant Henry Ford offered they'll have to find tens of thousands GM rivalry as your standard battle his employees five dollars a day so more workers to fire. between good and evil, it seems now they could afford to buy his cars, that Ford and GM actually have a lot automotive manufacturers relied on Beam can be reached at in common - falling market shares, this generational brand loyalty from ebeam@umich.edu. LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Send all letters to the editor to tothedaily@michigandaily.com. I VIEWPOINT The Republican revolt By NICK GLAUCH We are all witnesses to the genius of the found- ing fathers. Even 200 years later, we can't help but be awed by the great wisdom exhibited by the patri- ots who freed our nation. Over the past two weeks, a commitment to one of their finest creations - the system of checks and balances - was renewed. I, as all Republicans should, look with anticipation to the end of the era where the entire government conforms with the president and to a return to the squabbling between branches that protects American privacy and civil liberties asnour founders intended. The backdrop of this revolt comes from the pro- cess of trying suspected terrorists who have been held in places like Guantanamo Bay. For the past month, President Bush has pressed Congress to pass legislation that redefines America's interrogation policies to better comply with the Geneva Conven- tion's ban on inhumane treatment of enemy soldiers. But the bill supported by the president would allow evidence to be kept from the defendant during his trial. It would also allow evidence gained through interrogation to be admissible in court, which would not comply with the Geneva Convention. Last week, the Senate Armed Services Committee revolted against the president's plan and backed the Supreme Court's reasoning in Hamdam vs. Rums- feld, which declared Bush's old policies illegal. All Americans should applaud this stand against the president, but it is Republican voters who should be even more proud of their officials: We finally got something we voted for. At the root of Republican ideology is a faith in checks and balances, because it harnesses the great power of competition in the furtherance of this nation's greatness and dedica- tion to liberty. It is this competition that keeps the different parts of government in a never-ending struggle with one another - and therefore too busy to violate our civil liberties and privacy. Checks and balances also give our three branches the ability to ask questions that lead to clarification and compro- mise. But over the last several years, few questions have been asked of Bush. Last week, that changed. Patriotic Republicans like Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Sen. John Warner (R- Va.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) realized that the president was wrong, refused to remain silent and reminded me what it means to be a Republican. I hope that this revolt leads to a return to the quibbling and competition that have always made America great. But for that to be so, others in Con- gress need to stand behind Senate Armed Services Committee. The senators who led the revolt did so in support of the values that all Republicans are sup- posed to hold dear and should be considered heroes among many too meek to raise their voice contrary to the president. The three senators from the Armed Services Committee showed a political backbone that seemingly never existed among Republicans in this 109th Congress. These senators reignited the Republican value of competition within govern- ment and complied with the will of the framers of our Constitution. They stood and checked the presi- dent, as the entire Congress was created to do. Now, in the wake of this revolt, Bush needs to admit defeat and find another way to legally try terrorists and send them to jail. After Hamdan and the recent backlash by his Senate allies, it is time for Bush to put his system of tribunals to a rest. It is his duty to com- ply with a return to balance - just as Madison, Franklin and Hamilton envisioned. Glauch is an LSA freshman. Wearing helmet far sexier than being dead TO THE DAILY: I am writing in response to Lau- rel Chartow's viewpoint (A public service announcement, 09/19/2006) about the importance of wearing a bicycle helmet. I applaud Laurel for taking a stand in the name of safety and addressing Ann Arbor's naked-headed crisis. We all fall off our bikes - and that fall might not just mean a dirty scrape or shameful getaway, it might mean getting our skulls smashed onto the concrete like pumpkins after Halloween. Now, the reason Laurel didn't wear a helmet when she fell and broke her two beautiful incisors is because hel- mets look really, really dorky. I'm afraid to lose my badass bike-mes- senger image to hecklers above Buf- falo Wild Wings who will probably call me a pansy and try to hit me with eggs if I start wearing a helmet. But Laurel's article made me think. I don't want to die, I want to live! I hereby declare I will wear a helmet while I'm riding my bike, and so will all of my friends. And we have a plan on how to make helmets sexy. So, thanks for the piece, Laurel, and keep on the lookout for some hot biker babes wearing stylish, yet deli- ciously safe, bicycle helmets. Lizzy Baskerville LSA senior coverage of the speech has almost entirely missed these important and interesting points, instead choos- ing to take one quote wildly out of context. Despite statements from the Vatican explaining quite clearly what the Pontiff meant in his speech, dem- onstrations took place on a large scale across the Middle East. In Gaza, churches have been firebombed. In Somalia, a nun was murdered along with her bodyguard. Her dying words were "I forgive, I forgive." It is profoundly sad that a very good and intelligent speech by the pope cannot be discussed seriously by all who deal with the problems of faith and reason and religious vio- lence but is instead met with riots, firebombings and murder. It is also very disappointing that The Michigan Daily chose to further the poor coverage of the speech by printing only an inadequate article from the Associated Press and then following the rest of the world in taking the allegedly offensive quote entirely out of context for the "Nota- ble Quotable." It would have been better to provide no coverage at all than to continue to fuel misunder- standing in this way. Those wishing to gain a proper understanding of the situation may find the Pope's speech at http.// www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory. cfn?recnum=46474. Sean Moberg LSA junior However, very few people realize how the policy truly works. While underrepresented groups are given consideration in the admissions pro- cess, it is important to realize that all students, regardless of race, gender,, sex, religion or ability, have to under- go the same process. No one is entitled to admission into the University. Therefore, the argu- ment that someone's "spot" was taken by an undeserving student is not only invalidbutcannot be supported in any way. It is also importanttorealizethat these policies are used to help usher women of all racial backgrounds and ethnicities into academic fields where we are underrepresented. I'll admit I'm a little less than apa- thetic when itcomes to political issues. However, I decided that in order to become a more knowledgeable voter, I needed to research MCRI in its entirety, as well as some of the other policies related to affirmative action. To my understanding, the effects of the MCRI could be astounding on this campus - and not in a way that truly treats everyone as equal. However, I digress. My aim is not to sway anyone to any particu- lar side, but to encourage people to really take time to read about MCRI. There are non-biased, non-partisan pieces of literature available through various organizations on campus that spell out both sides of the propo- sition ina clear, concise manner. We all have access to the information; the real question is whether we have taken the time to read it? Some may argue that affirmative action is "reverse discrimination.' Some may argue that affirmative action allows women and minorities to be on equal playing fields with their counterparts. Before anyone jumps to support or oppose this proposi- tion, I believe that we all should take just a few minutes out of our hectic day to thoroughly educate ourselves on the effects MCRI would have on our campus beyond the obvious. I have made my decision about how I will vote, and I can only hope that the campus community will be able to make an informed, non-biased deci- sion in November. Erika Purcell-Williams LSA senior 4 Press coverage of pope Educate yourself unfair, incomplete about MCRI 4 KIM.LEUNG TiiE TAKE-OUT Box i TO THE DAILY: Over the weekend, an international controversy arose regarding a speech by Pope Benedict XVI. In his speech, the pope condemned religious vio- lence by all people of faith, saying, "Violence is incompatible with the nature of God.and the nature of the soul." He also argued that "not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature;" re-affirming the tra- ditional Christian understanding of God as the rational creator of a ratio- nal universenot as something wholly other, unbounded even by logic. Unfortunately, worldwide news To THE DAILY: There has been much turmoil and debate on campus as to whether voters should support or oppose the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative. My concern is that people are not truly researching the effects this proposal would have on the University. Some may agree with race-based policies; others may not. While I am not urg- ing readers to vote in any particular manner, I am urging them to fully research the effects of MCRI. The biggest issue people focus on is that affirmative action policies seem to give a "leg up" to minorities. JOHN OQUIST v.Y THE WHITE HOUSE IS DRAFTING OH PLEASE STOP THIS IS CRUEL A PROPOSAL TO CONTINUE THE AND UNUSUAL I'LL TELL YOU CIA'S INTERROGATION TACTICS... EVERYTHING JUST STOP TICKLING I WISH THEY'D LISTEN TO MY ME HANAHA PLEASEII GREAT NEW PROPOSAL.. / . WELL OK.. / "c5-l OK.J WAS THE 20TH HIJACKER., AND I SWEAR TO GOD I'D KILL YOU RIGHT NOW IF MY HANDS WERE FREE...AND YOUR FAMILY TOO HAHHAHANAIII I 1 i / .'-' I I