4A - Friday, November 17, 2006
The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.cam
L74 Ai4 3a
Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan since 1890
413 E. Huron St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
RYAN JABER JTM E.
4
DONN M. FRESARD
EDITOR IN CHIEF
EMILY BEAM
CHRISTOPHER ZBROZEK
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS
JEFFREY BLOOMER
MANAGING EDITOR
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily's editorial board. All other signed articles
and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
Transitmeans trains
SEMCOG should steer clear of 'rapid' buses
n light of the Southeastern Michigan Council of Govern-
ments's study of proposed rapid transit systems between the
Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti area and Detroit, students who support
the revitalization of the rails will have to be more vocal than ever
- or be forced to revisit their elementary-school bus-riding days.
The free market is the
only mechanism that
has ever been discov-
ered for achieving par-
ticipatory democracy."
- Words of Nobel Prize-winning
economist MILTON FRIEDMAN, who
passed away yesterday, as quoted today
in The New York Times.
(ZS c~D~
'IFLET1
4
A Prop 2 prophecy
The SEMCOG Ann Arbor-Downtown
Detroit transit study released last
Tuesday was designed to estimate
ridership and costs for five proposed rapid
transit options - a light rail system, two
rapid bus transit plans and two commuter
rail plans. The results of the study essen-
tially ruled out a light rail line, though a
rapid bus system is still under consideration.
Southeast Michigan needs more substantial
mass transit than buses can provide, howev-
er. Adding passenger routes to existing rail
lines is abetter approach.
The SEMCOG study determined that
light rail was not a viable option for the
Ann Arbor-Detroit route. This announce-
ment struck a death blow to a transporta-
tion option that has proved fundamental in
the transformation of struggling metropo-
lises around the country. Instead, SEM-
COG's study showed that a rapid transit
bus system or a commuter rail line erected
on existing freight rail would be the most
feasible options for Ann Arbor to Detroit
mass transit.
Both options elicited groans - and a coun-
ter-study of SEMCOG's research methods
by commuter-rail advocacy groups, includ-
ing Detroit's Transportation Riders United.
TRU members argued that the SEMCOG
study factored in only the most expensive
options when calculating the projected cap-
ital, operation and labor costs for the com-
muter and light rail systems.
In addition to high costs, SEMCOG pre-
dicted an extremely modest ridership for
the proposed rapid transit system. Howev-
er, SEMCOG's own report admitted that it
had no way to accurately predict the transit
market without providing starter rail ser-
vices as a way to test the market - a reason-
able approach.
As the TRU website points out, Detroit
is the only major U.S. city without a rapid
transit system. A fleet of "premium buses"
speeding across - or bogging down -- the
highways between Ann Arbor and Detroit is
a terrible way to implement such a system.
The proposed bus plan does not factor in the
costs of constructing a special bus lane along
the I-94 corridor and assumes that layering
on the "premium" features - nice buses and
fancy stations - will elicit a greater rider
response than the average rail line. But
however inexpensive a rapid bus fleet might
appear to be, the riders who are pushing for
rapid transit in Detroit demand real mass
transit. And that means a commuter rail.
SEMCOG's other option - to use existing
rail lines as the starting rail for a commuter
system, while renting additional lines from
Amtrak - is a far better one. SEMCOG
should take TRU's suggestions seriously
and work on developing feeder systems -
buses and especially light rail - that have
worked in cities such as Portland. Light rail
may not be a viable option for commuters
along the southeast corridor, but streetcars
have been missing from heart of Detroit
since 1956. It is time to bring them - and
the era of sustainable commuter transpor-
tation - back to Michigan.
After the passage of Proposal
2, things went downhill for
the University. While Univer-
sity President Mary Sue Coleman had
pledged to fight the new constitution-
al amendment in court, the battle was
years away. In the meantime, the elec-
tion was certified in December 2006.
A judge denied the University a stay,
and thus for the first time in its his-
tory, applicants for the fall 2007 term
were evaluated
by two differ-
ent systems.
This was
clearly reflect-
ed in the fresh- _
man class that
year. Minor-
ity enrollment
dropped nearly
30 percent. JARED
Many attrib- GOLDBERG
uted this to
the percep-
tion that, without affirmative action,
the campus would be more hostile
to minorities. By 2010, just like in
California, out of a freshman class
of 5,500, slightly more than one hun-
dred were black. What the Michigan
Civil Rights Initiative's opponents
had feared most became reality.
Proposal 2 also affected women
at the University. Without affirma-
tive action programs, the number of
women in engineering and the sci-
ences plummeted. Women, it seemed,
simply felt that they were no longer
welcome in those fields. In just a few
years' time, most of the new faculty in
the sciences were white men.
Economically, Michigan sank
deeper and deeper despite Gov. Jen-
nifer Granholm's desperate efforts
to save it. Globalization had killed
manufacturing in Michigan, and Pro-
posal 2 drove the high-tech industries
away. Graduates from all universities
in Michigan fled the state in an effort
to find the best-paying jobs. By 2015,
Detroit's population had fallen to
fewer than 750,000. Even the popula-
tion of the surrounding suburbs had
declined. While Granholm had suc-
cumbed to Republican pressure and
replaced only a fraction of revenue
from the Single Business Tax in order
to spur commercial growth, without
affirmative action, few businesses
came to Michigan. Many social pro-
grams had to be cut, as well as Univer-
sity funding, because of the lost tax
revenue - another fiscal conservative
promise unfulfilled.
Outside the wealthy suburbs of
southeastern Michigan, where school
funding was always high, K-12 educa-
tion in the poorer parts of the state
plunged. With even fewer good teach-
ers willing to teach in Michigan, the
quality of education in poorer dis-
tricts declined. Graduation rates in
Detroit schools dropped, as well as
in poorer districts in Flint, Saginaw
and Benton Harbor. Students saw no
reason to finish high school as long as
they had to compete with the much
better prepared students from pre-
dominantly white high schools flush
with resources.
MCRI supporters, emboldened by
their so-called "mandate" from Pro-
posal 2, began to lobby for their own
idea of how to fix public education
schools - school choice. Their argu-
ment was simple: Competition cre-
ates and encourages innovation. If the
government and the schools can't fix
themselves, make them compete with
each other and with private schools,
both secular and parochial. Even Ward
Connerly, who was busy working to
eliminate affirmative action in ver-
mont, returned to support the plan.
Liberals once again voiced their
protest. "Students are not products,
teachers are not tools, schools are
not factories," they proclaimed. The..
MCRI crowd, now working for the
MCEI - the Michigan Competitive
Education Initiative - quickly dis-
missed them as either left-wing radi-
cals sympathetic to Osama bin Laden
or teacher union cronies. Their initia-
tive passed, once again using hyper-
bolic and confusing language.
The quality of public schools wors-
ened, as richer and whiter private
schools like Cranbrook Kingswood,
and Detroit Catholic Central sucked
precious dollars that previously went
to public education.
By 2020, it was estimated that of
the 45,000 people at the University,
fewer than 500 were underrepre-
sented minorities. This had nothing
to do with qualifications. Rather, it
was the widespread belief that the
campus was not friendly to minori-
ties that kept students from applying.
While a majority of students were still
"liberal" on campus, conservative
groups became stronger as the cam-
pus became whiter. Young Americans
How Proposal 2
could destroy
Michigan.
for Freedom burned President Barack
Obama in effigy. This had nothing
to do with race, everyone was told.
Obama was just another "elite Social-
ist radical" whose main supporters
were Hollywood celebrities.
The year 2020 was also when the
University's challenges to Proposal 2
were heard before the U.S. Supreme
Court. After 14 years of court appear-
ances and millions of dollars in legal
fees, the Supreme Court finally ruled
against affirmative action by over-
turningGrutter v.,Bollinger. This 2003
decision had ruled the Law School's
admissions process to be constitution-
al, and it had formed the basis of the
undergraduate admissions process
before Proposal 2. The court ruled all
affirmative action unconstitutional.-
This final blow cemented the insti-
tutional racism in Michigan that
seemed to benefit the rich and white.
Living in the most segregated and
economically downtrodden state in
the country, people began to wonder if
Proposal 2 was such a good idea after
all. But hindsight is always 20/20, and
thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court, it
was too late to go back now.
Jared Goldberg can be reached
at jaredgo@umich.edu
4
SEND LETTERS TO: TOTHEDAILY@MICHIGANDAILY.COM
Skyboxes would divide fans
into 'elitists and the rest'
TO THE DAILY:
Is Michigan Stadium to become a spectacle of
"The Elitists and the Rest," or will it remain the
home of "the Leaders and Best?" Michigan Sta-
dium is revered for its traditional look. Adding
two large luxury box towers would change for-
ever its simple, classy appearance. The Athletic
Department should lead the way, not follow the
trends other programs have pursued.
Fielding Yost was persistent in his pursuit of
an expandable facility for the enjoyment of all
the public, alumni and students. Improvements
should benefit all fans in attendance while
accommodating the ever-growing demand of
those who wish to see a football game in Michi-
gan Stadium. Upgrades and modifications to
the stadium should be expected, but when they
stray from the character, architecture and tra-
ditional intent of the structure in order to keep
up with contemporary desires, we lose the
results of a hard-fought legacy left by the for-
ward-thinking and diligent Michigan faithful
who came before us.
Moreover, an economic look clearly shows
that there is a greater benefit in simply renovat-
ing and increasing seating capacity. One argu-
ment I have heard for the skyboxes is that they'd
bebetter at containingnoisebutisn't this apret-
ty expensive device for a team that has no prob-
lems maintaining a winning record? Expanding
seating capacity is a simple and economical
approach to increase revenue, but building two
towers restricts future seating expansion.
Greg Quist
Class of'96
Daily's Prop 2 coverage
exaggerates effects
TO THE DAILY:
Based on the Proposal 2-related stories I've
been reading in the Daily recently, I'll be lucky
if I can happen upon any minority students at
all when I next visit campus. This week's State-
ment cover story, (The campus is segregated.
How Proposal 2 will make it worse, 11/15/2006)
is particularly gloomy. The sky is falling in Ann
Arbor, and the Daily is here to warn us of it.
The anecdotal evidence and pictures that
accompany the article do not exhibit a racial
divide any more than one page can accurately
represent a book. But let's take the article's point
at face value for minute. The environment in
which this limited amount of interaction takes
place has arisen in spite of all the University's
affirmative action programs. So, how does it
follow that the dismantling of these programs
will lead to even less interaction? Is the campus
so divided that copious amounts of affirma-
tive action are necessary for even the smallest
amount of interaction to take place? My experi-
ence on campus and my two years as a resident
adviser tells me that this just isn't so.
Minority enrollment at the University will
drop at first - this is natural and expected. But
gradually, the University will move toward its
own "steady state." It's happening in Texas,
and it can happen in Michigan, too.
Michael Saltzman
Class of'05
President Coleman should
reconsider MCRIresponse
TO THE DAILY:
Questions and commentary aboutthe passage
of Proposal 2 occupy conspicuous positions in
news and editorial sections of papers across the
state and country, especially in light of Univer-
sity President Mary Sue Coleman's audacious
plan for massive resistance to implementing
the new law of the state. To be sure, one way
to find answers is through the legal challenges
approach chosen by BAMN and contemplated
by the University.
But there is another way. Toward a Fair
Michigan, a Michigan-based 501(c)(3) educa-
tional institution, has organized a day-long
conference to be held on Dec. 8. The purpose is
to appraise the status of programs of reconcilia-
tion and inclusion within Michigan, to plan for
progressive change within the state, to create
the framework for such a plan and to identify
participants and sponsors. Coleman was invit-
ed, but will she attend?
William B. Allen
The letter writer is chair of Toward a Fair Michigan.
Progressives, Greens better
off voting for Democrats
TO THE DAILY:
Patrick Cooper-McCann argued that Demo-
crats have no right to claim their votes were sto-
len by Green candidates running for state Senate
(Dems don't necessarily deserve Green Party
votes, 11/14/2006). Regardless of whether one
feels the monolithic Democrats, as he character-
izes them, deserved votes cast for the Greens,
the progressive cause would have scored a tri-
umph had these votes been cast differently.
For instance,AndyLevin, alifelonglabor activ-
ist and social progressive, lost his bid for state
Senate by fewer than 800 votes. This loss leaves
Michigan's Senate in the hands of a rabidly con-
servative, anti-choice, anti-stem-cell-research,
tax-cut'obsessed Republican majority. Progres-
sives who voted for Green candidate Kyle McBee
missed an opportunity to elect a true progressive
Democrat, one who inspired nearly 50 College
Dems to knock doors for him last month.
Furthermore, since McBee did not even runa
serious campaign - even his roommate defect-
ed to Levin - those who voted for him did
nothing to boost the credibility of third-party
candidates or leftist ideas. The election results
struck a serious blow to Michigan's first chance
in a very long time to restore some sanity and
progressive thinking to our state Legislature.
Jamie Ruth
KC senior
The letter writer is chair of the University
chapter ofCollege Democrats.
4
KEVIN BUNKLEY I V
The wrong energy solution
If a little girl says something, it must be true, right?
According to the adorable children in the new ad cam-
paign for www.learnaboutcoal.org, we've been going about
this dependency on foreign oil all wrong. Each ad involves
a 10-year-old patiently informing us that America has
a 250-year supply of coal right its own backyard. That's
right, forget about ethanol, forget about biodiesel and for-
get about more efficient cars - the way to break America's
Middle East oil addiction is through coal, this irrespon-
sible ad campaign would have us believe.
The group responsible for these ads is called Americans
for Balanced Energy Choices, a nonprofit advocating "pol-
icies that strike the proper balance between protecting
the environment and providing for continued economic
growth and prosperity for America's working families."
Nothing surprising there from a group funded by coal pro-
ducers, coal transporters and electricity companies. Yes,
coal does provide a lot of the U.S. electrical supply. Amer-
ica produces 35 percent of the world's coal, and consumes
574 million tons of it a year. It's the "fuel of the future,"
according to the ABEC, But by promoting the use of coal,
this campaign would make the country trade an oil addic-
tion for irreversible climate damage.
The United States is responsible for one-quarter of the
world's carbon emissions, and an increased dependence on
coal would be disastrous. The planet's temperature rose
nearly a whole degree in the last century, and it's because
of oil and coal burning that the amount of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere keeps going up. Keep upping the
amount of coal combustion, and greenhouse gases will
increase, causing acid rain, smog and warming of the
oceans. It's no secret that coal is the chief contributor to
these factors. The Economist labeled it the number-one
environmental concern.
One look at China's consumption of coal and what it's
doing to thatccountry is reason enoughto prevent the pursuit
of coal as an energy source. China lacks both the technolo-
gy and money to use alterative energies or reduce emissions
from coal - and as a result 400,000 Chinese die each year
from health problems related to air pollution. They too have
a motivation to avoid achieving title of world's heaviest pol-
luter. If sea levels rise significantly, some of China's largest
cities, like Shanghai, will end up beneath the ocean.
Coal may be the primary energy source in the United
States today, but the government can ensure coal is not
America's "fuel of the future." While even oil compa-
nies are finally making an effort to research alternative
energies, the coal lobby is putting false hope in a limited
solution. Oil and coal lobbies have too much influence on
Washington, but the new Congress has the opportunity to
work toward solving the energy problem.
It could start by ratifying the Kyoto Treaty - the United
States is one of a handful of the more than 160 signatories
not to ratify the agreement. Why? President Bill Clinton
couldn't get it through Newt Gingrich's Congress. In their
newfound position of power, Democrats now have the
chance to right a terrible wrong. The long-term solution to
this country's energy problems is not under our own soil,
but in the hands of the officials we democratically elect. It
is our responsibility to elect these people wisely and theirs
to take actions that best serve our environmental future.
Kevin Bunkley is an LSA junior and a
member of the Daily's editorial board.
0
6
e
Editorial Board Members: Reggie Brown, Kevin Bunkley, Amanda Burns, Sam Butler,
Ben Caleca, Devika Daga, Milly Dick, James David Dickson, Jesse Forester, Gary Graca,
Jared Goldberg, Jessi Holler, Rafi Martina, Toby Mitchell, Rajiv Prabhakar, David Russell,
Katherine Seid, Elizabeth Stanley, John Stiglich, Neil Tambe, Rachel Wagner.
JOHN OQUISTI E .Y11,£EET
SO THIS EVOLUTIONARY THEORIST IN
LONDON SAYS THAT IN THE FUTURE,
HUMANS WILL SPLIT INTO TWO
GROUPS, DWARF-LIKE PEOPLE AND TALL
PEOPLE WITH BIG BREASTS AND HUGE
PENISES, BECAUSE WOMEN NATURALLY
SELECT FOR BIG PENISES...
SERIOUSLY.
SO WHAT THOSE EMAILS
TELL ME IS TRUE!
HE SAYS HUMANS WILL BECOME SO
SELECTIVE THEY'LL ONLY CHOOSE
PHYSICALLY ATTRACTIVE MATES. THIS
GUY'S OBVIOUSLY NEVER BEEN
HEY BEAUTIFUL, TO A BAR.
YOU LADIES
WANT A ROUND? AOL
ALAR
r
!f
SEE WHAT I MEAN?
WE'LL HAVE TWO
BEERS, BIGB OYI
0
.4
I
S A1 ' Q3l I''~N B 6f,;.',.d6 1 ll iE1Y > .
A