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