100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

April 09, 2007 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 2007-04-09

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

4A - Monday, April 9, 2007

The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com

Jbe Mi*idiigan &U
Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan since 1890.
413 E. Huron St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
tothedaily@umich.edu

He used what was described to me
as rude language "
- Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Ian Gregor on what a Northwest Airlines pilot said immediately before
a flight from Las Vegas to Detroit that prompted cancellation of the flight, as reported Saturday by Reuters.
ALEXANDER HONKALA

*I

KARL STAMPFL
EDITOR IN CHIEF

IMPAN SYED
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR

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.
A new legacy
Fairness in admissions requires rethinking qualification
E ven after Michigan voters stamped out preferences for
minority applicants five months ago, universities across
the state and country continue to give legacy students
similar advantages. If the movement to ban affirmative action was
intended to make college admissions fairer by considering only
merit, yet legacy students are still given preferences, then what

i

The approachin9grenaissance

exactly entails being qualified?
A study by Princeton University found
that among groups traditionally given a
boost in college admissions (underrepre-
sented minorities, athletes and legacy stu-
dents), legacy students - those who had a
relative attend the same university - were
performing the worst academically. Using
data from 1999, when admissions offices
across the country were permitted to use
rubrics that quantified an advantage given
based on race (like the University's points
system), researchers weighted the dropout
rates of each group of students with the
amount of preference they were given. They
found that the 7 percent dropout rate for leg-
acy students was higher than both minori-
ties and athletes relative to the preference
given to each.
Legacy students are given preferences in
admissions because their parents are then
more likely to donate to the University. In
the age of slashed state-funding, it is under-
standable why colleges continue to do this.
While that doesn't make legacy preferences
any fairer, it does allude to the complexities
of college admission which proponents of
Proposal 2 were all too happy to overlook.
Affirmative action opponents portray the
preferences given to minority students as
unwarranted advantages granted to unde-
servingstudents. By overlookingother groups
receiving preferences like legacy students,
supporters of Michigan's so-called civil rights
initiative were pushing a policy that was both
ignorantof reality and inherently racist in
its unqualified indictment of minorities. And
voters bought into the rhetoric.

The problem is that some students - like
legacy students - apply to the University
with misleading high school accolades that
students from lower-income or high minor-
ity urban high schools do not have. Affir-
mative action is necessary to help identify
qualified minority students who can com-
pete at the college level.
A larger problem is that people often nar-
rowly define who is unfairly advantaged in
admissions. Not only are legacy students
getting a noticeable advantage in the admis-
sions process at universities, they also have
the added advantage of having a parent who
has successfully graduated from that uni-
versity. Underrepresented minorities often
do not have the latter advantage, and now
Michigan and several other states are deny-
ing them the former too. Is that really fair?
To create an admissions system in which
all people are evaluated by what they have
accomplished, the foundations of the debate
about fairness, equality and advantage
need to be restructured. Why are people
so uncomfortable with minorities getting a
boost in admissions while they continue to
ignore boosts given to legacy students and
athletes? Part of this debate needs to be
focused on answering the original question
of how exactly do we define "qualified."
While the answer to that question is not
simple, it certainly cannot be addressed
with merely test scores and GPAs. It inevi-
tably has to consider the many nuanced situ-
ational factors that affect the achievements
we see on paper.
And that's affirmative action.

Negative press seems to follow
Detroit like a relentless rain
cloud. Last week, another
blow to the city's already fragile
image came when U.S. Rep. Tim Wal-
berg (R-Mich.) said that the streets of
Baghdad were just as safe as those of
Detroit. No matter
how he actually
intended the com-
ment to sound, the'
fact that so many
people found the r .
comparison plau-
sible is testament ,
to Detroit's inhos-
pitable reputation. SAM
Let's face it, BUTLER
given the choice,
you'd have to be crazy to live in
Detroit. But it is precisely that kind
of crazy that makes Detroiters unlike
any other city's residents in the coun-
try. In the face of economic retreat,
a dysfunctional city government and
unfair public perception, the revival
of Detroit is coming not at the hands
of major financiers and investment
bankers but through grassroots
development projects dependent on
city residents themselves.
The people who are rebuilding
Detroit are doing it with their own
blood, sweat and personal finances. If
you live and do business in this city,
you do it only because you care. For
being the most racially and economi-
cally segregated city in the country,
Detroiters constantly talk about com-
munity. Detroit is not a user-friendly
city to be sure, but its people are infi-
nitely so.
Take for example bar owner Jerry
Belanger, who was highlighted in a
recent feature in the online magazine
Model D. Belanger, a man in his late
40s, just spent $1.6 million of his own
money to open The Park Bar inside a
two-story Albert Khan building near
Grand Circus Park.

Why did Belanger drain his funds
and suffer several broken bones to
personally restore the '20s-era build-
ing? Because of his neighbors. As he
is quoted in the feature, "I frickin'
love the people who inhabit this city.
I have traveled all over the country
and I have never been to a city where
I love the people as much as I love
those who live in Detroit."
Largely ignored by the rest of the
county, Detroit is happy to forge
its own way. This is why Belanger,
after virtually cleaning out his entire
bank account, was able to open his
place with liquor borrowed from a
neighboring jazz bar. This is also
why Belanger hired all Detroit-based
artisans to execute the detailing of
his building and why he only stocks
Detroit-brewed beer and plays only
Detroit-based music.
Detroit is a city in waiting. It is
a city pleading for change and has
been for years. This sense of urgency
affects everything - it is a palpable
cultural construct, an overwhelming
and engulfing feeling that reminds
us everyday of something lost and a
long-held promise of getting it back.
Whether it's over a power lunch in
Oakland County or numerous PBRs in
midtown, the topic of Detroit's revi-
talization is something of an obsession
for Metro Detroiters. It dominates
conversations and energizes south-
eastern Michiganians while baffling
and annoying out-of-towners.
Proof of this cultural obsession can
be seen in the recent Shrinking Cities
exhibit at the new Museum of Con-
temporary Art Detroit. Where else
would contemporary art and wonk-
ish urban planning collide and, more
surprisingly, cater to the same kind of
clientele? Where else would abstract
expressionist collages be displayed
next to academic papers explaining
urban free-trade zones?
Detroit is the only city where

underground subculture, spiked with
the edge of rebellion, is also imbued
with a tremendous amount of civic
pride. Where else will young subver-
sives explain the city's quirks to new-
comers as if they were members of a
welcoming committee?
The way hipsters in New York City
discuss music, Detroit hipsters dis-
cuss urban renewal - to the same
tunes and without the pretension.
City boosterism shows up in the edi-
tor's notes of alternative arts maga-
zines like Inflame, belted by DJs in
nightspots like the Corktown Tavern
and is sold by independent clothiers
like Spy on Second Avenue.
All Detroit
needs is a little
neighborly love.
However, we have to be careful not
to romanticize Detroit's condition.
The city has many problems, and peo-
ple contributing to its revival should
be realistic about its many shortcom-
ings. Let this be a warning to all those
intrepidly crossing 8 Mile to "save"
Detroit - you .can't. Detroit doesn't
need saviors; it needs good neighbors.
We all know of Detroit's reputation
for being unsavory, but nothing could
be further from the truth. Detroit is
the Rodney Dangerfield of American
metropolises. It's this lack of respect
makes its residents wholly unapolo-
getic.
Detroit is not a city of hostility, but
merely defiance. You think its people
are crazy? That's fine by them. You
think they can't change things? Well,
just watch.
Sam Butler can be reached
at butlers@umich.edu.

0

JOHN OQUIST |
IN A NEW REPORT ON GLOBAL H-MAN.0 MEEK AINT
WARMING IT SAYS THAT THE fj HAPPY WE'RE GONNA INHERfT
POOR WILL Bt THt WORST REALLY?so oe eT
H T BY CLIMATE CHANG EA Y NOT POOR. SH"TI
°1 ~Ltc s
<'1 \A

0

Editorial Board Members: Emily Beam, Kevin Bunkley, Amanda Burns, Sam Butler,
Ben Caleca, Mike Eber, Brian Flaherty, Mara Gay, Jared Goldberg, Emmarie Huetteman,
Toby Mitchell, David Russell, John Stiglich, Jennifer Sussex, Neil Tambe,
Radhika Upadhyaya, Rachel Wagner, Christopher Zbrozek

SEND LETTERS TO: TOTHEDAILY@UMICH.EDU

Editorial misrepresents
research on cheating
TO THE DAILY:
I applaud The Michigan Daily for tak-
ing an interest in cheating in the Col-
lege of Engineering (A dishonored code,
04/06/07). However, some information
in the editorial was inaccurate and mis-
leading, and as a person involved in the
research, I'd like to clarify a few details.
The editorial implies that the research
in which I've been involved was a seven-
year investigation of the University's
College of Engineering students. In fact,
the project involved engineering and
humanities students at 11 different insti-
tutions. Only a small fraction of the data
I presented at the March 28 seminar per-
tained to the University's College of Engi-
neering undergraduates. Further, in that
presentation I noted that the percentage
of Michigan students who self-reported
engaging in several types of cheating
behaviors was consistently smaller than
the percentage for the entire sample (this
was not mentioned in the editorial).
The editorial also implies that nearly
nine out of 10 students admitted to cheat-
ingduringunproctoredtests,andsoasserts
thatthehonor code is inessencepromoting
unethical behavior. However, for the data I
presented, "cheating" was defined as hav-
ing participated in any of several behaviors
- ranging fromtaking an exam for another
student to copying from another student on
homework to storing answers for a test in a
calculator or PDA.
In fact, 31 percent of the total sample
admitted to "copying from another stu-
dent during an exam" at some point
during their college careers, while just
26 percent of students at this university
reported engaging in the same behavior.
Thus the engineering honor code likely
has a positive effect in encouraging ethi-
cal behavior. Other evidence that the
honor code does indeed work is that 56
percent of the overall sample (and just
35 percent of the University of Michigan
sample) admitted to "witnessing a case of
cheating and not reporting it."
The editorial recommends that instruc-
tors simply monitor exams as a remedy to
the problem of cheating, but my research

suggests that there are other, more effec- ply preposterous
tive solutions. For example, a student's Michigan. We're
sense of moral obligation to act ethically because we chet
is closely linked to lower levels of cheat- you will fail the c
ing. So promoting activities such as ser- If all of our stu
vice learning - where students have an miserably in indu
opportunity to see the ethical and soci- flipped over then
etal implications of their behavior - may the top-ranked et
result in long-term benefits. country? Certait
The editorial's assertion that for more flooding here inc
than 92 years the College of Engineer- ing jobs to our en,
ing's honor code has been a hallmark of . I know thatv
trust is right on target. From many of the courses I have t
comments that were posted on the Daily's treated like an 8
website in response to the editorial, it is during exams. I
obvious that the students see the value of leave my backpa
the honor code. We are lucky to have the of the room, ant
code and students who largely abide by it hawk-like proctc
and take responsibility for their actions. seems as if LSA1
Results of my current research are sity of cheating.
expected to uncover practical ways to
improve the long-term ethical behavior of Jonathan Price
students in all disciplines and at all insti- Engineeringjunior
tutions. More information is available at
http://www.engin.umich.edu/research/
e3/index.html. CheatingC

. This is the University of
not a top-ranked school
at. If you're unqualified,
ourse.
dents cheated and failed
stry and created cars that
how do we stay among
rgineering schools in the
ly industry would stop
droves to offer high-pay-
gineering grads.
with the couple of LSA
taken (Chem 125), I am
8-year-old in a museum
must take off my coat,
.k and phone at the front
d then I am watched by
ors during the exam. It
has the greatest propen-

often not

Cynthia Finelli
Managing director of the University's Center for
Research on TeachingandLearning-North.
Jealous LSA kids unfair
to decry engineering
TO THE DAILY:
I am appalled by Friday's editorial
about the level of cheating in the Univer-
sity's College of Engineering (A dishon-
ored code, 04/06/07). This seems nothing
more than a sleazy attempt by frustrated
LSA kids to make engineering seem less
great than it really is.
I am a junior in computer engineering
and have been through my fair share of
exams. Not once have I seen an instance of
cheatinginwellover20 exams.Yetaccord-
ing to the editorial, nine out of 10 kids stu-
dents cheat.So in an exam of 100 kids, that
means close to 90 kids must be cheating.
Last I checked, this isn't the case.
Second, the editorial goes on to state:
"The thought of unqualified engineers
making it through college because of their
clever cheating methods should send
chills down anyone's spine." This is sim-

addressed by University
TO THE DAILY:
In response to Friday's editorial (A dis-
honored code, 04/06/07), I can say first-
hand that cheating is-common in many
engineering college programs. It is naive to
think the situation is any different in other
fields of study. When students do report
cheating, often nothing results from it.
I filed a complaint with the College of
Engineering and Rackham when another
student plagiarized my work in a chapter
of her doctoral dissertation. When I first
filed the charge, the student claimed I
had never been involved in the project at
all. I produced detailed computer records
documenting the research and proving
the student had lied, but neither the Col-
lege of Engineering nor Rackham cared.
Despite repeated requests to follow the
written Academic Integrity Policy, they
ignored the complaint and claimed that
I had "been properly acknowledged." No
written acknowledgement has ever been
given, and the student's dissertation com-
mittee was never informed that part of the
dissertation may have been plagiarized.
To make things worse, the admin-
istration rewrote the Academic Integ-

rity Policy, rewording it to give them the
authority to unilaterally dismiss any com-
plaint without a hearing if they choose to.
Even the Alumni Association has ignored
the whole situation.
In their defense, other groups aren't
much better. I refiled the complaint with
the IEEE engineering society. It even-
tually dismissed the complaint stating
what the other student did wasn't wrong
because "she simply published work in
which she had co-ownership of." What
the hell is that? Last time I checked, pla-
giarism is a pretty clearly defined term.
It's sad that universities, companies
and even professional societies have all
these great published ethical standards,
but when it really comes down to it, it's
all just cheap talk that doesn't mean any-
thing. Because they clearly have no inten-
tions of ever putting up, I think it's time
they consider just shutting up
Thomas Ellis
EngineeringAlum
Committee chair on
criticismfrom SOLE
TO THE DAILY:
I'd like to respond to Elliott Mallen's
viewpoint in Friday's Daily (SOLE: It's up
to you, Mary Sue, 04/06/07), which dis-
misses out-of-hand the work of the Presi-
dent's Committee on Labor Standards and
Human Rights. The committee, which I
chair, is made up of three faculty members,
three students and three staff members. It
spent all of last year assessing the Desig-
nated Suppliers Program, a proposal by
the United Students Against Sweatshops
that would require that most collegiate
goods be produced in factories approved
by the Worker Rights Consortium.
After extensive review, the majority of
the committee had significant concerns
about the structure of the proposal and
its feasibility and recommended that the
University not endorse the DSP. (Those
interested in understanding the recom-
mendation may read the 2006 report at
http://www.ilir.umich.edu/CoLSHR.)
Mallen's characterization of the com-
mittee as "a dilatory advisory body" is not
accurate. The committee isvery concerned

about shortcomings in code enforcement
and has not been seeking to delay or defer
decisions on this issue. Since last year,
in addition to continuing to monitor the
development of the DSP, it has also been
working on strengthening enforcement of
the University's labor standards code by
making adherence to the code more inte-
gral to the licensing process.
An important element has been get-
ting a clearer picture of how the code is
currently monitored. To that end, the
committee developed a pilot website and
online data collection, which it imple-
mented in partnership with three other
universities to help ,determine ways of
improving the effectiveness of our codes.
Before the end of the semester, the com-
mittee intends to recommend specific
actions to be taken by the University.
Mallen also states that the commit-
tee has "devoted less than 14 hours" to
its work. This is spurious. In addition to
its formal meetings, the committee has
devoted considerable time beyond its
monthly meetings. Just as classroom time
is only a fraction ofthe effortin a course,it
is inaccurate to characterize the commit-
tee's work as limited to its formal meet-
ings. Members receive a steady stream
of communications from the Worker
Rights Consortium, the Fair Labor Asso-
ciation and others on a broad range of
labor rights and code enforcement issues.
These are an important part of the com-
mittee's deliberations. The committee
also has organized and held two public
forums on campus to discuss the DSP as
well as a session with licensees on current
enforcement efforts. In addition, a repre-
sentative of the committee has attended
eight out-of-town meetings, includingsix
organized by the Worker Rights Consor-
tium's DSP Working Group.
The committee has sought to assess
the code of conduct situation carefully
and provide University President Mary
Sue Coleman with considered advice.
While those who support the DSP should
advocate for its adoption, the discussion
is not advanced by denigrating the work
of those who may disagree and are seek-
ing alternatives.
Lawrence Root
Chair ofthe President's Advisory Committeeon
Labor Standards and Human Rights.

6
0
6
6

i

Back to Top

© 2024 Regents of the University of Michigan