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