0
4A - Thursday, March 29, 2007
The Michigan Daily - michigandailycom
Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan since 1890.
413 E. Huron St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
tothedaily@umich.edu
KARL STAMPFL IMRAN SYED JEFFREY BLOOMER
EDITOR IN CHIEF EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR 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.
Tenuous tenure
University should use tenure to increase faculty diversity
E specially since the passage of Proposal 2 in November,
campus diversity has been at the top of the University's
agenda - and rightfully so. In this context, the denial of
tenure to three minority professors is troubling. While the decision
may not be as sinister as some critics contend, now is a crucial time
in the University's quest to maintain a diverse student body. It needs
to recognize the importance of faculty diversity as a complement to
student diversity and make the necessary changes to achieve it.
Hell is a place where sinners really do burn in an
everlasting fire. "
- Pope Benedict XVI refuting claims that Hell is an abstract concept while addressing a parish in a northern
suburb of Rome, as reported Monday by the New York Post.
Te ghost ofgenoci des past
6
On the surface, the February decision to
deny tenure to three professors is easy to
wonder about. The three professors in ques-
tion, Phillip Akutsu, Jacqueline Francis and
Sussan Babaie, are longtime assistant pro-
fessors and also underrepresented minori-
ties. Francis had already been approved
by both her departments - the Center for
Afro-American and African Studies and art
history - but she was still denied tenure at
the final step. After so much emphasis on
diversity by administrators, the decision
seems counterproductive.
To be fair, most professors are denied ten-
ure on their first try. This can happen for a
variety of reasons: Their departments may
have been too small to accommodate anoth-
er tenured professor or maybe their research
was simply not up to par. It's not fair to ques-
tion the University's decision based on spec-
ulation alone, as some critics have done.
However, the University should realize
that its battle to maintain diversity is not
just a fight to increase minority enrollment.
Faculty diversity is important for the same
reasons that student diversity is important.
It creates an environment in which differ-
ent cultures, ideas and experiences can fos-
ter collective learning and understanding.
Professors are like professional students
who should be encouraged in the same way
as the student body to challenge ideas and
conventions.
But the importance of faculty diversity
goes beyond just a healthy learning envi-
ronment. If the University is serious about
improving its student diversity, professors
are valuable tools in achieving this goal.
For minority students - especially students
who come from underprivileged school dis-
tricts - professors can serve as influential
mentors. The ability to relate to professors
in experience and background is pivotal in
attracting and retaining diverse students.
For the University to achieve a diverse fac-
ulty and to lock in its quality professors, the
tenure system needs to be revamped. Tenure
provides professors with increased benefits,
job security and research freedom, all of
which many at the University have earned
but are yet to attain. Often, the research of
professors is given greater consideration
than classroom teaching in tenure decisions
because it brings in money and prestige.
Although faculty research is important,
some professors havea clear popularity with
the student body - a talent worth reward-
ing. If the University gives equal credence to
both popular professors and research pro-
fessors, professors that are inspirational to
minority students will inevitably be encour-
aged to stay. And as an added bonus, students
are getting more engaging (and therefore
better) professors.
The University should remember that
diversity means more than maintaining a
certain number of minority students. The
tenure system is one way the University can
expand faculty diversity, and it is to its ben-
efit to use this tool wisely.
Activism againstcthe genocide in
Darfur has become omnipres-
ent. Students Taking Action
Now in Darfur has just joined with the
new group Will Work for Food to help
raise awareness and aid those suf-
fering in the conflict. Students have
the power to change the world. We
have done it before,
and the creation
of groups like Will
Work for Food and!
STAND will show
future generations
that not everyone w -
was silent.
The genocide in
Darfur however, is JARED
definitely not the GOLDBERG
first modern geno-
cide. Genocides
were common throughout history,
even before the Holocaust. If we truly
want to honor the victims in Darfur
and understand how to help them, we
should recognize and remember one of
the first genocides of the 20th century,
that of the Armenian people.
April 24 will mark the 92nd anniver-
sary of the arrest and eventual murder
of Armenian leaders in Turkey. Though
for centuries Armenians lacked an
independent government and were not
equal citizens in the Ottoman Empire,
(which controlled much of Central Asia
and Eastern Europe, including historic
Armenia), the rise of Armenian politi-
cal institutions and groups in the 19th
century gave hope that Armenians
would eventually have their own state.
Several years before World War I, a
groups of reformers within the waning
Ottoman Empire, known as the Young
Turks, gained considerable power.
While some wanted to liberalize the
empire and grant more rights to minor-
ities, a faction known as the Commit-
JACK DOEHRING
tee of Union and Progress rose in the
ranks. By 1913, three leaders known
as the Three Pashas, assumed control
of the country. Much of their ideology
was overtly racist and expansionist.
What had begun as a policy of arrest
and detainment evolved into a cam-
paign of deportation, starvation and
mass murder. By the end of World
War Iin 1918, much of historic Arme-
nia, including the famous Mount Ara-
rat, had been completely "cleansed"
of Armenians. Over a million people
were dead. To put this in perspective,
it is estimated that the total number of
ArmenianswithintheOttomanEmpire
was no more than 3 million.
Unlike the Holocaust, or even the
events in Darfur, the Armenian Geno-
cide is still not recognized by some
countries. While Turkey's denial
comes as no surprise, other countries
like America and Great Britain do not
use the word genocide to describe the
events. Undeniably, though the many
parallels between Hitler's extermina-
tion policies and those of the Turkish
government between 1915-1917 are
clear; each can only be described as
genocidal.
So why the persistent denial? Why is
there no pressure on the modern gov-
ernment of Turkey to recognize past
horrors? Why are Western govern-
ments apprehensive about turning up
such pressure? And, perhaps the big-
ger issue, why do we acknowledge the
Holocaust, Rwanda, the Balkans and
now Darfur as acts of mass murder
to be universally condemned while at
the same time forget the genocide that
some have argued made it all possible?
I have my own theory about this
complacency:thenation-state.Modern
Europe, Central Asia and the Middle
East are states built on the foundations
of the nation, whatever your definition
of nation is. World War I created the
concept that nations deserve their own
states. Our world, since the downfall
of empires and colonialism, has seen
the birth of numerous such states. For
the modern state of Turkey, much of
whose current territory encompasses
historic Armenia, the genocide marks
its birth as a nation-state, arising from
the ashes of the Ottoman Empire. To
recognize it, inthe views of some, is an
admission of original sin.
Continued
denial is a grave
injustice..
Other countries in Europe and else-
where during and after World War I
also committed atrocities in their quest
for independence. Recognition of the
Armenian genocide would indict the
entire nation-state system, a system
that has created new identities for peo-
ple across the world - identities which
have liberated many from oppression
in centuries past.
The nation-state is an imperfect
creation, but remembering the Arme-
nian genocide doesn't invalidate it.
The Turkish people, like the Arme-
nian people, are free to determine
their own destiny in this world. But
to deny the deaths of a million people
does a grave injustice.
If we want our efforts to stop geno-
cide in Darfur to be successful or even
have any significant meaning, we
should always remember the Arme-
nian genocide.
Jared Goldberg can be reached
at jaredgo@umich.edu.
Editorial Board Members:
Emily Beam, Kevin Bunkley,
Amanda Burns, Sam Butler,
Ben Caleca, Mike Eber, Brian -
Flaherty, Mara Gay, Jared Gold-
berg, Emmarie Huetteman, Toby
Mitchell, David Russell, Gavin
Stern,John Stiglich, Jennifer'
Sussex, Neil Tambe, Radhika
Upadhyaya, Rachel Wagner,
Christopher Zbrozek
Want to write an opinion
column this summer?
Email editpage.editors
@umich.edu for
more information.
ERIN RUSSELL I
0D0 Yo KNOW THEYYRE ' E'M PUTTING MY PARENTS WELL AREN'T YOU THE MASTER
STARTING TO PUT WANTED PIcTURE ON A BOX. THAT'LL OF PAIN. IM SURE'THEY'LL BE
POSTERS FOR SAD PARENTS TEACH THEM TO TAKE AWAY MY WEEPING ALL OVER THE PEPPERONI.
oNPzzA xEs NITENo W PRMLGES QUIT BEING SARCASTIc OR
ILL PUT YOuR FACE ON THE
OX OF BUFFALO WINGS!
- Fi
JOHN STIGLICH
ROBERT LUPTON
Baseless witchhunt nets Libby
Libby the fall guy as Bush escapes
In his 2003 State of the Union
address, President Bush said: "The
British Government has learned
that Saddam Hussein recently
sought significant quantities of
uranium from Africa." Never in
American history have 16 words
in a presidential address caused as
much controversy and consterna-
tion as the sentence above; we still
find ourselves debating the mer-
its of President Bush's claim four
years later.
Despite two investigations -
one British and one American -
that concluded Bush's claim was
well-founded, the anti-Bush zeal-
ots still believe this was another
hoax perpetrated by the adminis-
tration. Today, I want to establish
once more for my friends on the
Left that this is a dead issue.
According to the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence report
on the Iraq/Niger connection,
administration officials, including
Vice President Cheney,requested in
early 2002 that the CIA take a clos-
er look at a foreign government's
(the name was redacted) claim that
Iraqand Niger had struck a deal for
500 tons of yellowcake uranium.
Because he had diplomatic connec-
tions in the region, the CIA enlisted
ambassador Joe Wilson to investi-
gate the matter.
Upon returning from Niger,
Wilson told the CIA he had met
with former Nigerian. Prime
Minister Ibrahim Mayaki, who
confirmed that Iraqi officials
interested in "expanding commer-
cial relations" approached him in
1999. Mayaki agreed to a meeting.
But refused to discuss any yel-
lowcake uranium exports to Iraq
because he feared the American
response to such a deal. Needless
to say, the meeting was short, but
everyone in the room knew what
the Iraqis desired.
According to an intelligence
officer questioned before the Sen-
ate Select Committee on Intelli-
gence, the CIA thought Wilson's
findings lent credibility to Bush's
claim and word was passed up the
chain of command. The Butler
Report (the British investigation
of the matter) found that Brit-
ish intelligence reached the same
conclusion upon hearing of the
1999 meeting. Thus, when Bush
entered those 16 fateful words
into his address and asked for CIA
confirmation of the claim, the
intelligence agency backed the
president.
By the summer of 2003, five
months after Bush's address,
the CIA began singing a differ-
ent tune. The agency had recent-
ly discovered that documents
unearthed by an Italian journal-
ist claiming Iraq had yellowcake
deals with Niger, Somalia and the
Congo were actually forgeries.
Although Bush's statement was
not based on these documents, the
CIA and the administration began
distancing themselves from the 16
words. Even the Senate commit-
tee's report was not conclusive
as to why this occurred, given
that the claim was not based on
these forgeries. Meanwhile, Wil-
son decided to write his legend-
ary op-ed piece in The New York
Times to expose what he saw as
the administration's faulty claims.
The media war was afoot.
The Bush Administration
couldn't possibly sit on its hands
and accept Wilson's criticisms.
After all, in Washington, a charge
not refuted is a charge accepted. So
Cheney and his associates began
plotting ways to discredit Wilson,
who at the time was claiming that
Cheney's office dispatched him to
Niger. The potential for embar-
rassment was too great for Cheney
to overlook.
Cheney and company eventual-
ly learned that Wilson's wife, Val-
erie Plame, was a CIA operative
working on the Iraq/Niger con-
nection. It was then discovered
that Plame landed the investiga-
tion gig for her husband. Sudden-
ly, the tables began to turn.
Word ofPlame's role inthe mat-
ter reached Deputy Secretary of
State Richard Armitage, a legend-
ary gossiper, who then informed
journalists Robert Novak and Bob
Woodward. Novak's column from
July 14, 2003, which exposed
Wilson's fallacy, was the first time
people outside the Washington
social circle heard of Plame. Since
she worked for the CIA's Counter
Proliferation Division, questions
were raised over whether Novak
could expose her in such a man-
ner. Therefore, then-Attorney
General John Ashcroft assigned
U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald
to investigate the matter.
Fitzgerald knew from the
beginning of his investigation
that Armitage was Novak's source
because Armitage had confessed.
This begs an important question:
If Plame was a covert agent, as
she and her husband claim, and
Armitage confessed, then why
did this matter turn into a three-
year soap opera? Armitage should
have been arrested, convicted and
jailed. The kicker is that Plame
was not a covert agent and there-
fore not protected as one. What a
waste of time and tax dollars.
The fact that Scooter Libby,
the vice president's chief of staff,
as well as Karl Rove and other
administration officials were tell-
ing reporters of Plame's role in her
husband's investigation was irrel-
evant. In the end, this whole mess
proves that the only thing. Libby
is guilty of is a faulty memory and
hiring a bad lawyer.
That's not a punishable crime,
even in Washington.
John Stiglich is an LSA senior
and a columnist for the Daily.
In his comments about the
Scooter Libby trial (the latest of
which lie just across the dotted
line), John Stiglich shows that
he either fails to understand
the facts of the case that led to
Libby's indictment and convic-
tion or his ideology leaves him
unconcerned about the fraud
that was perpetuated against
the American people by the
Bush Administration in the
months leading up to the Iraq
War. Here, I will provide a brief
history of the yellowcake ura-
nium scandal, correct Stiglich's
erroneous interpretation of
the events in question, refute
his claims about Libby's and
the administration's criminal-
ity and hopefully provide some
finality to this issue.
In 2003, based on forged
documents provided to Bush
Administration foreign policy
advisor Michael Ledeen by for-
mer Italian intelligence agent
Rocco Martini, President Bush
alleged in his State of the Union
Address that Iraq was attempt-
ing to purchase yellowcake ura-
nium from Niger. The patently
false assertion thus became one
of many exploited by the Bush
Administration to make its case
for war. Unfortunately, Stiglich
continues to wrongly describe
ambassador Joe Wilson's role in
debunking the forgery, the intel-
ligence community's reaction
to his trip to Niger and the very
basis for his trip.
Stiglich is quickto cite the Sen-
ate Select Committee on Intel-
ligence report about this affair,
but perhaps he should read it a
little more closely. Stiglich con-
cludes that the committee found
that Wilson had confirmed that
Iraq was exploring trade options
with Niger when he returned to
America. In fact, the commit-
tee agreed with Wilson on the
opposite conclusion, pointing to
an intelligence report published
on March 8, 2002 that substan-
tiated Wilson's claims counter-
ing what the administration had
said about Niger.
The Senate Select Committee
on Intelligence concluded, "The
intelligence report described'
how the structure of Niger's
uranium mines would make it
difficult, if not impossible, for
Niger to sell uranium to rogue
nations, and noted that Nige-
rian officials denied knowledge
of any deals to sell uranium to
any rogue states." Thus, there
was no trade agreement in the
works between Iraq and Niger,
and any option that may have
been previously "explored" was
known to be a non-starter by
the Nigerian government and
U.S. intelligence sources - all of
which was ignored by the Bush
Administration.
Stiglich calls Wilson's cred-
ibility into question but his accu-
sations are baseless. The report
states, "The CIA's DO (Director-
ate of Operations) gave the for-
mer ambassador's information
a grade of 'good,' which means
that it added to the IC's body of
understanding on the issue."
Finally, Stiglich implies that
Wilson lied about being sent on
a fact-finding trip by Vice Presi-
dent Cheney. Again, Stiglich has
chosen to reiterate right-wing
talking points rather than con-
vey facts.
In his July 6, 2003 New York
Times op-ed piece, Wilson
writes, "The agency officials
asked if I would travel to Niger to
check out the story so they could
provide a response to the vice
president's office." Wilson was
sentby the CIA in order to answer
questions about the alleged
Iraq/Niger link that arose from
the vice president's office. At no
point did Joe Wilson explicitly
say he was sent by the vice presi-
dent, and at no point did he lie
about the evidence he uncovered
in Niger. The only people who
lied about Niger were members
of the Bush Administration, who
refused to accept Wilson's con-
clusions because they failed to
demonstrate that Iraq possessed
nuclear weapons.
As for the Libby trial, I made
it clear in my letter that Libby
was by far not the most culpable
member of the Bush Adminis-
tration in the yellowcake/Plame
scandal. I disagree with Stiglich
in that I do not believe Libby is
completely innocent - perjury
and obstruction of justice are
indeed punishable offenses and
he was rightly held accountable
for committing them. Stiglich
can decry Patrick Fitzgerald's
decision to make Libby the "fall
guy," but it was Libby who lied
to federal prosecutors and sealed
his own fate.
The problem with the ver-
dict is that it masks even more
serious criminality on the part
of the Bush Administration,
which extends well beyond Iraq.
Stiglich conspicuously fails to
respondto anyofmy claims about
Bush Administration illegalities,
ranging from detainee abuse to
wiretap telephone surveillance
(and recently, lies about the fir-
ing of U.S. attorneys). Instead
of commenting on these impor-
tant issues, Stiglich continues
to cover for the administration's
deception and support its policy
of smearing political opponents
without regard for the merits of
their work.
Stiglich has the pulpit of a
campus newspaper to express his
views. He must be more respon-
sible in what he writes.
Robert Lupton is an LSA senior.