4

4A - Wednesday, March 26, 2008

The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com

74c1E itthdi'*an &at6U
Edited and managed by students at
the University ofMichigan since 1890.
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@umich.edu

ANDREW GROSSMAN
EDITOR IN CHIEF

GARY GRACA
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR

GABE NELSON
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.
The Daily's public editor, Paul H. Johnson, acts as the readers' representative and takes a critical look at
coverage andcontent in every section of the paper. Readers are encouraged to contact the public editor
with questions and comments. He can be reached at publiceditor@smich.edu.
A grave mistake
'U' must make serious effort to return remains
I doesn't take a lengthy history lesson about the treatment
of Native American tribes in the United States to realize
that their struggle has been wrought with racism and injus-
tice. The effects of this mistreatment still pulsate through com-
munities today. So it goes without saying that tribes hardly need
another grievance to add to their already-long list. Unfortunately,
the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan has one against
the University - one that the University needs to make a good-
faith effort to correct.

I have only voted once in my life."
- Jack Kevorkian, assisted-suicide advocate and independent candidate for Congress, at a press
conference yesterday in Southfield, as reported yesterday by The Detroit Free Press.
ROSE JAFFE E-MAIL JAFFE AT ROSEJAFF@UMICH.EDU
--'
Asking the tough questions

4

4

The tribe is claiming rightful ownership
of 1,428 human remains and artifacts cur-
rently housed at the University's Museum
of Anthropology. The group first sent a let-
ter to the University in November request-
ing the remains, but the University denied
the request. After months of inaction, the
tribe reissued its request at the Board of
Regents meeting last Thursday. In both
face-offs with the University, the Sagi-
naw Chippewa have argued that the three
excavation sites where these artifacts were
found are located on land attributed to
their ancestors. After examining the burial
site objects, tribe historians have reiterated
that the relics are affiliated with the tribe.
According to the federal Native Ameri-
can Graves Protection and Repatria-
tion Act passed in 1990, the University
must return any "culturally identifiable"'
remains to Native American tribes. Rather
than returning the remains or making a
concerted effort to determine their right-
ful owner, the University has simply main-
tained that the relics are "unidentifiable."
Therefore, the University cannot by law
give them back because doing so would
risk that the artifacts go to the wrong
owner.
This illogical stance begs the question
- what does the University have to gain
by denying this request? These remains
are not currently being used for research.

Many of the artifacts have not been used
in the past for research either. Such arti-
facts, however, are enticing for acquiring
renowned researchers. Hoarding these
1,428 remains and tribal items as a way to
fish for new faculty is despicable.
By not investigating if this tribe has
legitimate claims to these artifacts and
possibly returning them, the University is
hurting the Saginaw Chippewa and itself.
In the past the University has repatriated
artifacts to other tribes. Michigan State
University also repatriated items in its col-
lection to their appropriate owners in 1996.
Facing comparable appeals from tribes,
other universities like the University of
California at Berkeley, have taken a pro-
active approach too, creating committees
to quickly research such claims. It seems
unusual that the University has chosen to
take such a lackadaisical approach in this
case.
The Saginaw Chippewa Tribe isn't ask-
ing for these remains and relics for no rea-
son. These items have great spiritual and
cultural value - it's not as if these items are
worth thousands of dollars. The University
needs to do everything it can to decisively
conclude whether these remains should be
returned. There is no excuse for delay.
Right now, the University's stonewall
approach is only serving to hold this
group's heritage hostage.

hen the presidential and
vice presidential candi-
dates for the Michigan
Student Assembly
came to the Daily
for their endorse-
ment interviews a
couple weeks ago,
it dawned on me
how few students
actually come face-
to-face with them.
If I weren't a mem-
ber of the Daily's EMMARIE
Editorial Board, HUETTEMAN
would I recognize
MSAVice President
Arvind Sohoni on the street? Worse
still, would I know the name of the
incoming LSA Student Government
president? Do you? (It's Leslie Zaikis,
by the way.)
Beyond chalked Diagendorsements
and tell-your-friend-to-vote-for-my-
friend tactics, candidates for MSA's
executive office have little interaction
with the thousands of potential con-
stituents at the University. And con-
sidering that only about 6.4 percent of
eligible students voted in last week's
elections, the constituents don't seem
particularly engaged either.
It's a chronic problem, one with
which national candidates have
struggled: How do you reach out to a
group so large you can't to shake each
constituent's hand? Some of the most
recent attempts have aimed to direct-
ly involve the public, like CNN's You-
Tube debates last year. The debates
featured questions solicited from
voters nationwide, theoretically giv-
ing them the chance to directly ask
the candidates about the issues most
important to them.
So where was our YouTube debate?
We didn't have one. But just down
the road, Eastern Michigan Univer-
sity did. Last Wednesday, EMU's
candidates for student body president

and vice president appeared before a
crowd of students and debated topics
like their campus-wide ban on smok-
ing. They responded to questions,
which ranged from broader inquiries
about diversity to more pointed inter-
rogations about their absence from
campus events. And most important-
ly, they answered directly to the stu-
dents wielding the power to elect or
reject them.
There wasn't even a debate at the
University of Michigan this year,
let alone one allowing students to
ask the questions. In 2007, WOLV-
TV hosted its debate in South Quad
between presidential candidates
Maricruz Lopez of the Defend Affir-
mative Action Party and Zack Yost
of the Michigan Action Party. How-
ever, it was poorly attended (mostly
by members of MAP), and according
to debate moderator and WOLV-TV
News Director Katie Woods, it didn't
garner much student response.
However, Woods assured me that
the lack of feedback was not a factor
in the decision not to have a debate
this year. "We couldn't fit it in the
schedule," she said, explaining that
WOLV-TV had been busy coveringthe
Graduate Employees' Organization
walkout. Meanwhile, outgoing MSA
President Mohammad Dar said MSA
"wondered why" they hadn't heard
from WOLV-TV about doing a debate
this year but took no stepsto organize
its own debate.
Especially considering the scan-
dals that have wracked MSA through-
out the, past couple of years, holding
a debate would seem like the perfect
way to keep candidates accountable
from the start. Instead of coming up
with new ideas about how to attract
and involve students in the debate,
though, the campus media put the
whole thing on the backburner, while
MSA dumped the onus of keeping
itself accountable on the media. This

certainly doesn't bode well for a new
year of student governance.
EMU has proven that YouTube
democracy can be easily translated
into campus democracy, and it is an
example that our university's student
government should strive to follow.
Holding open, public debates would
allow students to directly question
candidates rather than leaving them
to hope that WOLV-TV or the Daily
will intuit what the students want to
ask. It would give them a forum to
personally examine the credibility
of the candidates and make better-
informed decisions.
What kind of
election doesn't
include a debate?
Considering the insignificant
change in voter turnout over the past
two years, it would be naive to argue
that holding a debate this year would
have made a big difference in convinc-
ing students to vote. However, the
fact that the debate slipped through
the cracks this year is unacceptable,
almost as unacceptable as MSA and
the campus media's apparent inability
to plan an engaging debate.
It is the responsibility of MSA to be
accountable and the responsibility of
the campus media to hold it account-
able, a task with which the students
have entrusted both parties. But if
they can't handle that responsibility,
then it's time for the students to speak
for themselves.
Emmarie Huetteman is an associate
editorial page editor. She can be
reached at huetteme@umich.edu.

4

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS:
Emad Ansari, Harun Buljina, Anindya Bhadra, Kevin Bunkley, Ben Caleca, Satyajeet Deshmukh,
Milly Dick, Mike Eber, Emmarie Huetteman, Theresa Kennelly, Emily Michels, Arikia Millikan,
Kate Peabody, Robert Soave, Imran Syed, Neil Tambe, Matt Trecha, Kate Truesdell,
Radhika Upadhyaya, Rachel Van Gilder, Rachel Wagner, Patrick Zabawa.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor. Letters should be
less than 300 words and must include the writer's full name and Univer-
sity affiliation. All submissions become property of the Daily. We do not
print anonymous letters. Send letters to tothedaily@umich.edu.

4

SEND LETTERS TO: TOTHEDAILY@UMICH.EDU

Lawsuitfails to represent
climate at Law School
TO THE DAILY:
In the Daily's recent coverage of the
lawsuit brought by Wayne State Law
School Prof. Peter Hammer, we feel that
the University's Law School and its com-
mitment to diversity - in particular to
the LGBT community - were misrepre-
sented. As Law School students, we have
found students, faculty, administration
and the larger community to be welcom-
ing and accepting of people of all sexual
orientations. The faculty and adminis-
tration are very supportive of our LGBT
student organization, Outlaws, and it is
our understanding that the Law School
is actively recruiting both LGBT stu-
dents and faculty as part of its commit-
ment to diversity. We feel the coverage
of the Hammer lawsuit has not given
adequate attention to the LGBT-friendly
climate at the Law School.
More importantly, the coverage of
this lawsuit has been largely one-sided
and misleading. The University and
Law School's policy of not commenting
on ongoing litigation notwithstanding,
the reporting was sloppy in its unchal-
lenged presentation of the allegations in
Hammer's pleadings. At this stage in the
litigation none of the facts alleged have
been proven. Instead, the judge is ruling
on whether asa matter of law the Univer-
sity should prevail even if all the facts are
given all permissible inferences in favor
of Hammer's allegations. The articles
on the case made it seem as if Hammer's
allegations are fact rather than assertions,
and as such painted the Law School as an
unwelcoming place for LGBT people.
While we would, of course, be outraged
if it comes to pass that Hammer was dis-

criminated against on the basis of sexual
orientation, we have no way of knowing
- and neither does the Daily. We would
appreciate the Daily presenting a fair
account of the situation at this institu-
tion, a Law School that we chose to attend
because of its diverse reputation and wel-
coming climate for LGBT people.
Mary Elizabeth Hanna-Weir and
Jordan Long
Law School
The letter writers are co-chairs of Outlaws.
Higher pay might not
yield better educators
TO THE DAILY:
Last week, I read a sign promising
me that better-paid graduate student
instructors yield better education. I
wonder if it's true.
The Graduate Employees' Organiza-
tion clearly knows how important GSIs
are to an undergraduate education or
else it would not believe a two-day walk-
out would be successful. Yet, I'm not
sure more pay will actually make GSIs
into educators. After all, teaching is a
profession, not just a temporary job used
to pay the bills during graduate school.
Would more pay mean that GSIs would
come to section with a prepared lesson,
buy a book on teaching methods or sac-
rifice their course work in order to focus
on mine? Would more pay really change
anything for undergraduates?
I do believe that GEO deserves many
of its requested concessions. Asking stu-
dents from Michigan - home of the auto
industry and the United Auto Workers
- not to cross a picket line is a demand
for respect. Many of us grew up know-
ing that a union is an important part of

our society, and that we should always can't afford to let s
support the workers. I know that I will with the University
not be able to cross a picket line. To GEO: Your b
I just hope that after I stay home, put- versity, not with st
ting graduate students' demands ahead ductive way to con
of my education, they will fulfill their University that doe
promises. I hope that they will consider in the middle.
their teaching position to be as impor-
tant as their graduate classes and put Daniel Cox
a proportionate amount of time and Engineeringfreshman
energy into it. I hope they will realize

omebody else's strife the benefits
affect my education. towards inte
eef is with the Uni-
udents. Find a pro- Reda Jaber
me to terms with the LSA senior
sn't put the students

of diversity, we must work
grating ourselves.


that even though teaching, for most of
them, is just a temporary position it still
decides the value of my education.
Maureen Brady
School ofEducationjunior
CEO walkout punishes
students, not University
TO THE DAILY:
According to the Daily's news story,
many GSIs aren't holding classes, office
hours, review sessions or answering
e-mails during their two-day walkout
(Negotiations fail, GEO set for walkout,
03/25/2008). Exactly whom are the grad-
uate student instructors striking against?
The University isn't pushing back
exam dates, and all of the work missed
by GSIs during the walkout will still
have to be done before exams. From the
University's perspective, the work out-
age doesn't accomplish anything - how
else could the University afford a walk-
out by the Graduate Employees' Organi-
zation every three years?
The only thing that GSIs are accom-
plishing is negatively affecting my edu-
cation. Because of their issue with the
University, I can't go to class, get my ques-
tions answered or get help. I am paying
a lot of tuition money to go to class, and

Seflsegregation defeats
purpose of diverse 'U'
TO THE DAILY
I really enjoyed reading Shakira
Smiler's column Friday about the chal-
lenges of dating someone with differ-
ent religious views and the continued
prevalence of people who believe that
interfaith dating is inappropriate (Guess
who's coming to dinner, 03/21/2008). It is
strange that at such a "diverse"universi-
ty, such narrow-mindedness still occurs.
I do not believe that the bias mentioned
by Smiler solely involves religion, nor
is it only apparent when considering
potential dating partners.
I ask each person to look through
your phone book and ask how many peo-
ple of a different religion or race are in
it. Take a look at your Facebook profile
- how many people of a different eth-
nicity wrote on your wall? Chances are
that most people have a significantly low
number of friends from different races.
We should all take pride in knowing
we attend a university where 25 percent
of undergraduates are ethnic minorities.
But in reality, this number is insignifi-
cant if your friends share the same eth-
nicity or religion as you. Although the
University is considered to be "diverse,"
it is still segregated. In order to reap

For strong protest, GEO
needs union solidarity,
TO THE DAILY:
When discussing the two-day walkout
by the Graduate Employees' Organiza-
tion, solidarity is a major theme. GEO
members ask for it from faculty and
undergraduates (which is hard when
physics professors, for example, require
attendance in labs and discussions), say-
ing that the one way that we can sup-
port them is by not crossing picket lines.
However, it seems that before they can
ask this from the people affected by the
strike, they must ask it from themselves.
Two of my classes with discussions
and office hours led by graduate student
instructors held class as usual, justify-
ing the decision by explaining that this
strike is illegal by state law. I don't
know the details of the law, but I know
that a successful walkout occurs when
the employees form a solid front against
their employer. I believe workers have
the right to strike when a compromise
can't be reached. I also believe that
strikebreakers who reap the eventual
benefits of a strike without participating
in the strike are incredibly hypocritical.
In the future, I would suggest more
cohesion between union members when
this sort of action happens. Those who
don't get the message weaken a poten-
tially strong signal to the University.
Max Rutz
Engineeringsophomore

.4

a

a

A,

4