4A - Monday, November 19, 2007

The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan since 1890.
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@umich.edu

He's like another father figure. Just having
him here is the whole reason why I came."
- Michigan senior linebacker Chris Graham, reacting tothe announcement of
head football coach Lloyd Carr's retirement yesterday.
What my vote costs

KARL STAMPFL
EDITOR IN CHIEF

IMRAN SYED
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR

JEFFREY BLOOMER
MANAGING EDITOR

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily's editorial board. Allother signed articles
and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
The Daily's publiceditor, Paul H. Johnson, acts as the readers'representative and takes a critical look at
coverage and content in every section of the paper. Readers are encouraged to contact the public editor
with questions and comments. He can be reached at publiceditor@umich.edu.
F ROM T HE DA ILY
The president's word
Coleman discusses goals, but glosses over stadium issue
After accepting a second five-year term as University presi-
dent in2006, Mary Sue Coleman exclaimed, "I have the best
job in higher education. Period." Coleman addressed the
University Board of Regents on Thursday in her annual talk outlin-
ing accomplishments and goals. While Coleman demonstrated her
commitment to improving the campus community through more
outreach programs and enhancing interdisciplinary research, she
failed to mention a certain hot-button issue, one that threatens to
cast a dark shadow over a lot of the good the University has done.

Of all of the initiatives Coleman pro-
posed in Thursday's speech, her plan to add
100 tenure-track faculty positions by 2012
was the most significant. She mentioned
the accomplishments made by faculty of
two different disciplines working together,
which is the reason the new tenure-track
positions will be interdisciplinary. Cole-
man can be credited for continuing the
University's push to be the best at what it
does, despite a persistent squeeze in state
funding. The University must be ensure
that the new positions go both to top schol-
ars from other institutions and to current
faculty who have already put in the time
serving this institution.
Coleman also outlined the significant con-
tributions and potential of the University
Research Corridor. The URC is comprised of
the University of Michigan, Michigan State
University and Wayne State University, and
together those institutions drive research
in Michigan - to the tune of $1.3 billion per
year. Separate funding for these research
universities was a contested issue, but Cole-
man and other URC leaders deserve credit
for successfully lobbying the state to allocate
separate funds for next year.
Coleman rightfully acknowledged the
University's obligation to give back to the
state - it is a public institution, after all
- and addressed the University's efforts
to reach out to students around the state.
She discussed a Center for Outreach and
Engagement as part of an effort to expand
the University's presence in public schools in
the state, as well as broader plans to ensure
the University maintains a diverse campus
in the aftermath of Proposal 2.
However, outreach must not be limited to
high school, which is too late a phase to truly
mold qualified students. Getting involved in
middle and elementary schools is a more
comprehensive solution, because it allows
the University to play a more active role in
creating the very students it can one day
admit. Such initiatives are crucial if the Uni-
versity wants to maintain a diverse campus
in the long term.
Coleman touched on drops in state fund-
ing but failed to address its results: rising

tuition that threatens to undermine the
University's diversity initiatives by making
it unaffordable. To its credit, the Univer-
sity generally increases financial aid to even
out increased tuition, but this is something
that Coleman must directly address: It is an
important part of assuring potential appli-
cants that the University is committed to
remaining within the reach of every student.
Tuition is a very tangible concern for almost
the entire student body and not something
that can be glossed over in a major address.
Coleman's failure to mention tuition costs
may well be benign: The University can at
least point to its financial aid packages as
proof that it is attempting to minimize the
burden on students. Her failure to mention
the renovation of the Big House and the con-
troversy surrounding it, however, is indica-
tive of a large problem.
In an ironic twist of language, Coleman's
only mention of the stadium was, "All of us
know the feeling of standing in Michigan
Stadium ..." Actually, some of us don't, but
Coleman's failure to acknowledge fans in
wheelchairs should come as no surprise to
anyone who has followed the University's
mind-numbing attempt to skirt regula-
tions of the Americans with Disabilities
Act and demands of the U.S. Department
of Education.
As the University faces a lawsuit from the
Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America
and a threat of revoked federal funding from
the Department of Education, Coleman and
the administration still appear oblivious
to the plight of disabled fans and apparent
discrimination at Michigan Stadium. This
shouldn't be so big of an issue: The University
should do what it takes to meet regulations
and move on. Unfortunately, it inexplicably
continues to drag its feet.
Coleman and the University have accom-
plished much in her first term, and there
are many commendable initiatives in the
pipeline. It would be a shame for all of that
to be overshadowed by the controversy sur-
rounding the stadium renovations. But that
is exactly what the University deserves as
long as it fails to address the significant con-
cerns of disabled fans.

To me, just standing in line at
the Apple Store in Briarwood
Mall on the day after Thanks-
giving is a pretty big
sacrifice for an iPod
touch. To 20 per-
cent of New York
University students, "
though, the even
right to vote in the
next presidential
election is a reason-
able sacrifice for the EMMARIE
coveted innovation.
According to aHUETTEMAN
recent survey con-
ducted by a NYU journalism class,
that's exactlythe price for which many
students would sell their right to vote.
The same study found that half of those
polled would forfeit that right forever
for $1 million. Perhaps the most tell-
ing statistic, though, is the two-thirds
of students who would give up their
"somewhat important" to "very impor-
tant" right to vote in next year's land-
mark election for a free ride to NYU
- a prestigious school that charges
about $35,000 a year in tuition.
Hell, I'd give up my vote for that.
It costs a lot to go to college, and
those costs are only growing. Even at
public universities like our own, stu-
dents suffer the realities of greedy
textbook manufacturers, high prop-
erty costs and irresponsible legislators
- harsh consequences that schools
can't, or won't, absorb. Meanwhile,
the necessity of higher education to a
successful career is more apparent as
graduate school becomes what college
was for past generations. With the rich
only getting richer off this structural
flaw in our education system, this is
Robin Hood's cue.
A favorite for this role among young
Confused writer picks
Michigan and OSU
TO THE DAILY:
I'd like to congratulate Kevin
Wright for being one incredibly con-
fused football writer and Michigan
fan. I can't think of another soul
who would have the stupidity (for-
getfulness, lack of respect, short-
age of common sense) to write a
column boasting how Michigan is
going to triumph over Ohio State in
last week's Football Saturday section
(Dueling columns: This is the year for
'M', 11/16/2007) and still pick Ohio
State to win the game five pages later
(Saffpicks,11/16/2007). Bravo.
Michael O'Brien
Engineeringjunior
Understaffed drive
costs 'U' the battle
TO THE DAILY:
Though most of campus will
undoubtedly feel the sting ofthe foot-
ball team's loss to Ohio State on Sat-
urday, the loss of the Blood Battle by
a mere four pints is also disappoint-
ing. Because this friendly contest
between Michigan and Ohio State is
the largest blood drive in the nation,
I was excited to take part. I've given
blood in the past and although the
process itself is as uncomfortable as
it is enjoyable, I have always looked
upon it as a positive experience over-
all and try to donate whenever Ican.
However, this time the experience
was more frustratingthan uplifting.I
scheduled an appointmentonlineand
arrived ontime Friday afternoon, but
I waited almost three hours for my
number to be called. After answer-
ing the preliminary questions and
getting a blood test for iron, I lay on
a bed for almost another 30 minutes
waiting for the process to begin. All
in all, I was at the Michigan Union

for almost four hours. In that time, I
saw many people leave after waiting
patiently for a few hours; others left
immediately upon hearing how long
they would have to wait.
It's really disheartening to see

voters is Barack Obama, yet he fails to
offer an inspired solution to the prob-
lem. Obama boasts an unsuccessful
attempt to raise the maximum Pell
Grant by almost $1,000 as a senator,
and now he proposes a vague plan to
eliminate subsidies to private lenders
in favor of federal loan programs. In
a speech to the College Democrats of
America last July, he spent more time
talking about the war in Iraq than
about risingcollege costs, offeringlittle
more than broad opposition to expen-
sive loans and debt. For a candidate
who generates so much enthusiasm
among college students, his stance on
the affordability of higher education is
surprisingly unremarkable.
A poll conducted in June by CBS
News, The New York Times and MTV
placed Rudy Giuliani ahead of the
other Republican candidates in terms
of enthusiasm among 17- to 29-year-
olds. However, when he was asked
at the University of Northern Iowa a
couple weeks ago what he would say to
young people who feel politically disil-
lusioned, Giuliani squandered his per-
fect opportunity to comment on issues
important to us. Instead, he clapped his
hands and told young people to "wake
up," lecturing that we have so many
opportunities in America: "You get a
chance to vote," he noted. "And if you
pass it up, it's your fault."
Clearly, saying that you want to
make college more affordable is a great
sound byte, but what are we supposed
to do when no one actually fits in Robin
Hood's tights? As proven by Giuliani's
lecture, these candidates see our age
group as a source of free enthusiasm.
They take our support for granted
without caring enough to make issues
like higher education costs a prior-
ity. Then they blame us for not turn-

ing out to vote in droves. According to
one respondent to NYU's survey, "At
the moment, no candidate who truly
represents my political beliefs has a
chance of winninga presidential elec-
tion." Why vote when even those who
we deem frontrunners won't give us an
incentive to vote for them?
Surprisingly, 70.5 percent of the
NYU students surveyed noted that
they believe their individual votes can
make a difference in elections. In fact,
this was true of 70 percent of students
who said they would sacrifice their
I would give up
my right to vote
for free tuition.
vote next year for a free education. This
is not apathy, as cynics like Giuliani
would have you believe; it's just easier
for them to take a cheap shot at young
people by sayingthat it is.
Maybe it comes down not just to
apathy or disillusionment as many
have speculatedbut to self-sufficiency.
If presidential candidates who have
been practically handed the support
of our generation can't be bothered
to discuss our issues and offer serious
solutions, then I wouldn't hesitate to
remedy the tuition issue for myself, if
given the chance.
But then again, I can't speak for
those who would rather have an iPod
touch.
Emmarie Huetteman isan associate
editorial page editor. She can be
reached at huetteme@umich.edu.

SEND LETTERS TO: TOTHEDAILY@UMICH.EDU

that the student interest was there, leum. If you'res
but the necessary number of staff some local farm,
members were not. I greatly appreci- offer potted tree:
ate the help of the nurses and volun- in their own pots
teers who gave so much of their time to mess with a tr
to help the cause, because without not drop as ma
them, the blood drive would not be floor, and they ca
possible. However, I have to wonder So this year do
why the drive was so understaffed. ent for Christma
With the appropriate number of ronment and you
nurses, how many more students buying a local, liv
would have stuck around and had
the opportunity to actually donate. Larissa Stassek
Enough to win the battle? And how LSA junior
many students will be more hesitant

still not convinced,
s in Michigan also
s. These trees come
, so there is no need
ee stand. They will
ny needles on the
n be replanted.
o something differ-
s. Support the envi-
er local economy by
e tree.

to donate in the future after a bad
experience? Let's just say 14-3 isn't
the only loss that saddened me this
weekend.
Kelsie Thelen
LSA junior
Live trees create many
reasons to celebrate

Firearmt
campus 14
TO THE DAILY
As presiden
chapter of the
I would like t
day's editorial
claiming that'
have given a g
that gun lawss

ANINDYA BHADRA E
How far can free speech go?

Most people tend to agree that freedom of
speech must be allowed for differing view-
points to prosper, but they do so only when
their own sensitivity is not being hurt. How far
do any of us go defending views that are con-
trary to our own? Should we protect what we
clearly think is hate speech? The 17th annual
Davis, Markert, Nickerson Lecture on Aca-
demic and Intellectual Freedom given Nov. 9
by Nadine Strossen, a professor at New York
Law School and the current president of the
American Civil Liberties Union, brought these
contentious questions out into the open.
The central idea behind Strossen's stance is
what she calls content neutrality. It's not very
far from a First Amendment absolutist point of
view, which holds that speech must be allowed
regardless of its content.
As Strossen correctly pointed out, most
people seem to object to "just one thing" that
sounds obviously wrong to them. For Jewish
people this might be a denial of the Holocaust;
for feminists it might be pornography that
they think objectifies women; and for Mus-
lims it could be an inflammatory cartoon of
the Prophet Mohammed. However, if we try
to account for all such exceptions and satisfy
everyone, we will find ourselves left with very
few things that we are free to say. This is why
the content must not be taken into account if
one truly supports free speech.
An absolutist point of view obviously means
that people will sometimes be exposed to
speech that has zero constructive value and
whose sole aim is to spread hatred. Neverthe-
less, we must respect people's ability to weed
out the nonsensical from the sensible and
count on the well-meaning members of soci-
ety to counter absurd arguments with logical
ones. The alternative - shielding people from
ideas that might cause greater harm - gives
rise to an omnipotent thought police, and the
result is an Orwellian society. We must real-
ize that once we trusta chosen few to filter out
unsafe information for us, we allow all of our
thoughts to be shaped by them. Being exposed

to stupid and at times dangerous ideas clearly
seems like the lesser evil.
Strossen gave several concrete examples to
explain her view on free speech, among them
the ACLU's controversial defense of Rev. Fred
Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church, the
North American Man/Boy Love Association
and Neo-Nazi groups like the National Social-
ist Party of America. As Strossen pointed out
multiple times, the ACLU does not support or
oppose these groups' views per se, but it sup-
ports their freedom to express their views.
The next logical question, however, is what
should we do when free speech can cause
physical harm as opposed to merely hurting
feelings? A University professor asked Stros-
sen for her opinion on certain anti-abortionist
websites that list the names and addresses of
doctors who perform abortions and advocates
killing those doctors. Should these websites be
protected by the First Amendment? Are they
not equivalent to giving shelter to a criminal or
shouting fire in a crowded theater?
Given the extreme nature of the example,
Strossen hedged a little and didn't give a clear
answer. However, she did point to Supreme
Court precedent on freedom of speech. The
currentstance of court, as determinedby Bran-
denburg v. Ohio (1969), says all speech is pro-
tected by the First Amendment unless it can
potentially cause "imminent lawless action."
Whether the websites in question pose the
threat of an "imminent lawless action" and
whether one should agree with the Supreme
Court's view are contentious questions that
should indeed be debated. More debate on
these issues will certainly clear up the confu-
sion surrounding free speech and may point
out loopholes in the definition of "imminent
lawless action." The first step is to realize that
the ideas, some of which clearly feel so wrong
and nonsensical in the first place warrant
debate instead of outright censorship.
Anindya Bhadra is a Rackham student and
a member of the Daily's editorial board.

TO THE DAILY: protect studen
It's almost Christmas again, and more guns jus
almost everyone will buy a Christ- hood of traged
mas tree. This season, before buying ginia Tech?"
an artificial tree, consider buying a I spoke to
live one. Live Christmas trees have Ypsilanti who
many benefits over artificial trees. when guns ar
The trees you buy at a local farm are places, sucha
grown on Michigan soil and cared they become
for by Michigan farmers. That fake this means ist
tree you pick up at a store was most somebody at gi
likely made in a factory in China. such a place, b
Tree farms have many environmen- tim won't have
tal benefits, while factories only are less safe wi
consume resources. A live tree is 100 As for futur
percent biodegradable, while trees ginia Tech, nt
made of plastic and metal will collect is goingto thin
and sit in landfills for a long time. gun ownership
Picking out a tree is a favorite makes it impo
holiday activity for millions each defend themse
year. Once the tree is home, the people. Virgini
entire family can enjoy decorating it zone duringth
together. A beautiful live tree makes and the shoote
the household complete during the on campus sim
holidays. And a plastic tree can never be slaughtered
replace that fresh pine smell. Cutting on shooting rai
down live trees each year may seem I'm not cra:
wasteful, but it is quite environmen- even shot a gun
tally friendly. Trees are 100 per- shoots at my fe
cent renewable - new ones can be them to be able
planted to replace the ones cut down
- whereas artificial trees require Eric Plourde
nonrenewable resources like petro- LSA sophomore

bans make
ess safe
it of the University
College Libertarians,
o respond to Thurs-
(Misfire, 11/15/2007)
our group should not
un voucher away and
should be tightened to
ts. It asked "Wouldn't
st increase the likeli-
lies like the one at Vir-
a police officer from
informed me that
'e banned in certain
as college campuses,
"soft targets." What
that if I want to mug
gunpoint, I will do it at
ecause I know my vic-
a gun. Thus campuses
thout guns.
e massacres like Vir-
o would-be murderer
.k about the legality of
p. Gun control simply
ssible for students to
lves from these crazy
a Tech was a gun-free
e time of the massacre,
r knew that. Gun bans
nply leave students to
d when murderers go
mpages.
zy. In fact, I've never
n, but when some idiot
ellow students, I want
to shoot back.

4

ARIELA STEIF
.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS:
Emad Ansari, Anindya Bhadra,
Kevin Bunkley, Ben Caleca, Jon
Cohen, Milly Dick, Mike Eber,
Gary Graca, Emmarie Huetteman,
Theresa Kennelly, Emily Michels,
Robert Soave, Jennifer Sussex,
Neil Tambe, Matt Trecha,.Radhika
Upadhyaya, Rachel Van Gilder,
Rachel Wagner, Patrick Zabawa

i