4

4A - Thursday, April 10, 2008

The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com


l1 Mi~hd14an ~a4
Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan since 1890.
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@umich.edu

4

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 criticallook 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.
Remember Michigan
Candidates must focus on state's issues in general election
While the rest of the country fights about who will be
our next president, Michigan is fighting for its voice to
be heard. Now a do-over primary is out the window,
according to the Michigan Democratic Party. And whether our
delegates are divided between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton
or don't get seated at all, both options will mean the same thing:
Michigan voters have been rendered irrelevant in the Democratic
primary. The best the state can hope for - and the option that the
Democratic nominee must take if he or she hopes to win this state
- is to be influential in the general election and make sure the can-
didates pay attention to the issues facing Michigan.

You want to go and take a hot bath after sitting
here in an airport all day."
- Evelyn Allen, resident of Durham, N.C., on her wait in Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport after
American Airline's cancellation of more than 1,000 flights, as reported yesterday by The New York Times.
CHRIS KOSLOWSKI T 0 PATR E-MAIL KOSLOWSKI AT CSKOSLOW@UMICH.EDU
"We need a successor for
the Kyoto treaty. Weneed Is that from a Bill Clinton Ha-ha! Score one
to close down Guannamo. s hor somthi nforthe good guys!
Hillary would make a good
President" o .kes all Jhn McCains hate y
e 4
-
e es e e
Protest b the Bay

I

How Michigan ended up in this mess is
no mystery. Though the state had every
right to want its issues to be focal points
of the primary campaign, it was punished
for challenging the Iowa-New Hampshire
stranglehold on the presidential nomina-
tion system. The Democratic National
Committee was particularly ruthless,
promising not to seat Michigan's delegates
at the convention.
Democratic candidates Barack Obama
and John Edwards followed the DNC's lead,
renouncing Michigan's Jan. 15 primary and
taking their names off the ballot. Michigan
voters were left with the pressing choice of
whether they wanted Clinton or "uncom-
mitted." Not surprisingly, Clinton won.
And now the DNC and the state Demo-
cratic party have egg all over their faces
after realizing that it disenfranchised two
entire states, Florida included.
The DNC has gone back on its word
to keep Michigan out of the convention.
Then numerous proposals for a "do-over"
primary or caucus followed, and an inevi-
table stalemate occurred. What's good for
Clinton- like awarding delegates based
on the vote in the Jan. 15 primary - is bad
for Obama. What's good for Obama - like
holding a do-over caucus or dividing the
delegates based on the nationwide popular
vote - is bad for Clinton.
Last week, the flawed idea of a do-over
primary finally met its end. At this point,

most people are just hoping that Michigan
will be represented at the convention, with
the delegates divided in some fair way - in
other words, in a way that will not make
Michigan the deal breaker for one candi-
date.
No matter what happens, Michigan has
been disenfranchised and neutralized by
the DNC. Grumbling among some voters
is making it a real possibility that Michi-
gan - usually a state that goes Democratic
- might turn red in 2008. If this Novem-
ber shapes up to be anything like the ones
in 2000 and 2004, Michigan could be the
swing state that decides the election.
Needless to say, the DNC screwed up and
should be reforming its primary system so
that this doesn't happen in the future. But
in the present, Michigan needs to be a focus
in the general election. What has happened
to Michigan's economy is both unique and
representative of what has happened to
the nation's economy. If the Democratic
nominee wants to solve the problems with
the country, he or she should focus on the
state's issues, like the loss of heavy industry
and the struggle to re-train a workforce.
Although we have been thwarted at every
attempt to have our say in the election so
far, the tables are about to turn. Once the
contest between Clinton and Obama is
decided, it will be time for Michigan's voice
to be heard. The Democrats better be listen-
ing this time.

The Olympic Torch made its way
through San Francisco yester-
day, the only American stop on
its storied journey
around the world.r-
And what a spec-
tacle it was - a San
Francisco treat, ifj
you will.
Two hundred
police officers were
called in to escort
the flame in hopes
of avoiding the kind IMRAN
of skirmishes that SYED
happened as the
flame made its way
through London and Paris recently.
Still, overzealous protestors jumped
barricades and shouted "Shame on
China" as they attempted to interfere
with the procession.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi
wants the U.S. Olympic Committee to
consider boycotting the opening cere-
mony of the Summer Olympics in Bei-
jing later this year. I strongly disagree,
but at least she has a considered, coher-
ent reason for her suggestion. That's a
luxury many of her San Francisco con-
stituents apparently cannot afford.
The enraged protestors want the
U.S. Olympic Committee to boycott
the BeijingOlympics in orderto punish
China for its continued human rights
violations, especially as highlighted
by the recent turmoil in Tibet. Hear
that China? If you keep silencing jour-
nalists and maiming monks, America
- the coolest kid on the playground
- won't play with you anymore.
Honestly, is the Chinese govern-
ment supposed to buckle to that sort
of bumbling, mindless attempt at
coercion? Not caring for what human
rights organizations the world over
have been saying for decades, is the
Chinese government just going to
freak and comply in face of demands
from a few San Francisco hippies-for-
hire? Of course not.
Is the point then simply to polarize
Chinese Americans or the good people
of China by rubbing our noses at their

country's special moment? I hope not,
but perhaps the protestors should con-
sider some context. Screaming anti-
Chinese sentiments in the shadow of
Angel Island - the immigration sta-
tion that was essentially a jail for Chi-
nese immigrants during the Chinese
Exclusion Act - presents a wry human
rights irony for our own country. The
point of the protest was to bring real,
meaningful, lasting social change to
the largest polity in the world, but
such hackneyed juxtaposition can only
undermine that goal.
We have the right in this great
democracy to protest, and boy do we
use it. But, more importantly, we have
the responsibility as mature human
beings to act in the way most rational
for fulfilling our purpose, and we don't
seem to be too big on that.
Ifyouhaveastrongpoliticalmessage
to send, why would you boycott one
of the world's largest stages? Should
Tommie Smith and John Carlos have
boycotted the '68 Olympics because
they were upset by racial injustice in
American society? Some folks sug-
gested they and other black athletes do
just that. But the two American sprint-
ers luckily proved smart enough not to
shoot themselves in the foot.
Smith won gold in the 200-meter
dash, while Carlos took bronze in the'
same event. As the Star Spangled Ban-
ner played to honor their victories, the
two men raised black-gloved fistsin
the mostmemorable and damningpro-
test in sports history. The black power
salute - initially ostracized, but today
celebrated as the heroic gesture that
it was - would never have happened
had Smith and Carlos decided to stay
home.
Certainly the Chinese government,
and perhaps even the International
Olympic Committee, is terrified of
the possibility of the repeat of such a
moment. So, my earnest agitators, why
ease their fears?
The concept of athletes taking a
stand, however, leads us to another
dangerous precipice. In1968, Jim Crow
was a tangible reality that black Ameri-

can athletes could readily understand.
Thus, Smith and Carlos were political-
ly aware black athletes who protested
something that directly affected them.
Can that be said for any of the Ameri-
can athletes who may choose to take a
stand in Beijing? Probably not.
As much as I do want to see Michael
Phelps don the "Free Tibet" Speedo
when he breaks those world records,
I'd like much more that any politi-
cal statements made by protestors at
events like the one in San Francisco or
by athletes atthe Olympics beheartfelt,
informed and substantive. Wouldn't it
be better for all of us if these Olympics
went without empty grandstanding by
athletes who feel compelled to protest
because of the mayhem surrounding
these games?
Phelps's 'Free
Tibet' Speedo
won't matter.
Pelosi wants to boycott the opening
ceremony because it is an aggrandize-
ment of the Chinese government Fair
enough, but how about our lawmakers
stop being lazy and stop pretending
that the Olympics and their athletes
have any more capital to effect social
change than the government? How
about getting some legislation passed,
meeting with and pressuring China
diplomatically - you know, the sorts
of things that actually work?
The Olympics certainly have a polit-
ical aspect, and there's nothing wrong
with athletes behaving as Smith and
Carlos did. However, there are so
many more substantive ways to bring
change, and it's in our best interest to
pursue those first.
lmran Syed was the Daily's fall/winter
editorial page editor in 2007. He can
be reached at galad@umich.edu.

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.
MIKE STECHSCHULTE
The Ann Arbor complex

STUDENTS ALLIED FOR FREEDOM AND EQUALITY
Focusing on the core issue

On behalf of the students of the University
of Michigan at Flint (and also students at the
Dearborn campus, I'd venture to say), I would
like to express my utter disappointment in
the recent change in purchasing priorities
for Michigan football tickets. Under the new
policy, priority will be given to University
students attending the Ann Arbor campus
over students at the Flint or Dearborn cam-
puses, which smacks heavily of a "we're bet-
ter than you" mindset.
When the University established its branch
campuses in Flint and Dearborn, it was with
the goal of expanding the University and
spreading values already in place. And as the
Flint campus celebrated its 50th anniversary,
we believe it has done just that - until now.
The University's new ticket policy is the
first step in officially severing what has
become a good relationship among the three
campuses, and one that can only lead to more
serious divisions. No one here is going to
argue against the fact that Ann Arbor is the
premiere campus of the three. That's why the
Big House is there and not here. But football
isn't everything in college, and there are some
things that the Flint and Dearborn campuses
have to offer that the Ann Arbor campus does
not. Ann Arbor students routinely come to
the Flint campus for our doctorate in physi-
cal therapy. The Dearborn campus has one of
the best industrial/manufacturing programs
in the country. The Flint campus will be get-
ting the only journalism program of the three
campuses next year.
The two satellite campuses of the Univer-
sity include more than 15,000 students, and
by essentially saying"you're not as important
as we are," the school is alienating almost a
third of its population - not a good thing if
we're really trying to build the brand.
In a recent statement to The Michigan
Times, Marty Bodnar, the associate athletic
director for ticketing services, defended the
move, sayinghe didn'twantAnnArbor fresh-
man sitting outside the student section in "no
man's land" during football games.

In a written response to a Facebook group
created to protest the changes, Bodnar said,
"A freshman student is excited about attend-
ing football games at Michigan Stadium, but
their excitement quickly wanes when they
end up sitting by themselves. This is not a
positive way to welcome them to campus."
This is true. But isn't part of beinga fresh-
man having to work your way up before you
are awarded privileges? And doesn't the Uni-
versity care about "welcoming to campus"
students from Flint and Dearborn? Bodnar's
response was intended as a justification for
the policy change, but it may as well have
been a slap in the face.
But it wasn't just Flint and Dearborn stu-
dents who were left feeling neglected by the
policy change. The University also decided
to eliminate "partner tickets" to make room
for its freshmen inside the student section,
meaning that football fans who want to bring
a spouse or child will now end up "sitting by
themselves."
If the University feels so strongly about
creating space in the student section to meet
the demands of incoming freshmen, why not
expand the student section? You will lose
some "average Joe Fan" seats, but why are
casual fans' interests protected before those
of actual University students and their fam-
ilies? Of the college football games I've been
to, it has always been the student section
that cheers the loudest anyway. If we really
are the "champions of the West," why not
relish the fact that we are overflowing with
students willing to yell their hearts out for
their team?
Major colleges in other states have half a
dozen or more satellite campuses - the Uni-
versity has just two. But I know I speak for
students in Dearborn and Flint when I say
that maize and blue bleeds further than just
Ann Arbor.
Mike Stechschulte is the editor in chief of
The Michigan Times, the student newspaper
at the University of Michigan at Flint.
h

On March 6, 2008 the vicious
cycle of bloodshed that has defined
the decades-old Israeli-Palestin-
ian conflict manifested itself once
again. An armed Palestinian gun-
man entered into the library of a
religious school in West Jerusalem
and opened fire on students, kill-
ing eight and wounding even more.
Though some Palestinians found
this justified because most of the
victims were settlers, this repre-
sents a horrific logic.
As despicable and tragic as these
murders were, it is important to
remember that this wasn't an isolat-
ed incident - it was part of a larger
cycle of violence going back one
century. It cannot be divorced from
Israel's history of aggression and
occupation or Palestinian rejection
of it. Nor should we ignore Ameri-
ca's damaging role in the region.
In light of the recent Israeli bom-
bardment of Gaza - a stretch of
land largely populated by refugees
from pre-Israel Palestine - it is
necessary to recognize that misery
has no flags and no borders. Such
violence is not the cause, but the
symptom of the core issue.
So what is this conflict all about?
Some see it as a religious issue.
These people are partially right:
Israel was established as a Jewish
state on a land populated by Chris-
tians and Muslims, as well as Jews.
Much later, after secular resistance
parties failed the Palestinians, an
"Islamic" resistance formed. How-
ever, Israeli and Palestinian nation-
alisms continue to be based more in
secular nation-state principles than
in religious ideologies.
Some argue that the hostility is
about land. These people are par-
tially right as well since Israel was
given permission by the United
Nations in 1947 to form a Jewish
state on a majority of the historic
Palestine. This decision was made
in spite of the fact that Zionist land

ownership comprised an estimated
6 percent of Palestine and that the
Jewish people never actuallyexhib-
ited a demographic majority over
the indigenous Palestinians. Clear-
ly, the Arabs of Palestine had no
incentive to accept the UN decision
to partition their land. After Israel's
War of Independence in 1948, Isra-
el expanded its borders to include
nearly 78 percent of Palestine after
an estimated 700,000 Palestinian
refugees fled from or were forcibly
displaced by Zionist aggression and
intimidation. To this day, Israel
still expropriates Palestinian land
through settlement construction,
expansion and home demolition.
However, the best explanation
for the Israeli-Palestinian impasse
revolves around the idea of social
justice, namely equality. Israel was
founded by Jews fleeing persecu-
tion. These people wanted a state
to protect them from European
anti-Semitism and to gain collec-
tive equality with other peoples
in the world. Their flaw was seek-
ing to establish a state in a place
where other people lived and had
their own national aspirations. The
creation of Israel as a homeland for
the Jews inherently negated the
Palestinians' fundamental right to
freedom, equality and self-determi-
nation.
In 1939, Mahatma Gandhi
responded to a request for support
of the state of Israel from the phi-
losopher Martin Buber by writing,
"Palestine belongs to the Arabs
in the same sense that England
belongs to the English or France to
the French. It is wrong and inhu-
man to impose the Jews on the
Arabs. What is going on in Palestine
today cannot be justified by any
moral code of conduct. The man-
dates have no sanction but that of
the last war. Surely it would be a
crime against humanity to reduce
the proud Arabs so that Palestine

can be restored to the Jews partly
or wholly as their national home."
One can also learn by applying
other historical examples. Amer-
ica's experiences with having a
"white state" in a multi-racial land
led to slavery, and racial violence.
Instead of learning from other
cases, like those in South Africa,
Northern Ireland and Algeria,
people still treat Israel-Palestine
violence either as "ahistorical" or
historically inevitable, without see-
ing the basic problem: systematic
inequality that prioritizes Israeli
"security" over Palestinian rights.
Israel must recognize the equal
rights of the millions of Palestin-
ians living under its rule and fix the
history of injustice. Palestinians
must cease violent tactics aimed
at ridding an occupying force and
adopta strategy of co-existence.
This is not to demonize either
party for crimes or omissions, nor is
this piece an attempt to further the
reckless back-and-forth bantering
that certain groups, organizations
and individuals take part in on a
local, national and international
scale. It is absolutely necessary
to build peace in Israel-Palestine,
which requires abandoning old,
destructive modes of zero-sum
thinking. A true and lasting co-
existence requires equality - either
as individual co-citizens or collec-
tively as two sovereign states - in
Israel-Palestine. This benefits both
peoples. Until there is equality,
we can only expect more vengeful
violence. American foreign policy,
as John Mearsheimer and Stephen
Walt discussed at the University
last month, is an instrumental fac-
tor we must all seek totchange.
This article was written by SAFE
co-chairs Andrew Dalack and
Hena Ashraf, and SAFE members
Nadia Viswanath, Kamelya
Youssef and Sharief al-Gabri.

I

4 A