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.