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.

October 21, 2009 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 2009-10-21

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

4A - Wednesday, October 21, 2009

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
GARY GRACA ROBERT SOAVE COURTNEY RATKOWIAK
EDITOR IN CHIEF EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR MANAGING EDITOR
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position oftthe Daily's editorial board. All othersigned articles
and illustrations representsolely the views of their authors.
A more diverse campus
'U' must reverse trend through outreach, financial aid
T hough the University opened its doors to more students
than ever before this fall, many minority freshmen who
were admitted didn't accept the offer. The diversity of
the student population has shown a steady yearly decline since
the passage of the state's constitutional ban on affirmative action
in 2006. Making matters worse, recent economic conditions have
made it more difficult for minorities, who disproportionately fall
into lower-income groups, to afford a college education. In order
to reverse this disturbing trend of dwindling minority enroll-
ment, the University must provide more socioeconomic-based
scholarships and improve community outreach programs to pro-

We have a chronic budget problem,
and cuts aren't making it go away:'
- Michigan Education Association President Iris Salters, commenting on $54 million in
proposed state K-12 cuts, as reported yesterday by the Lansing State Journal.

0

E-MAIL ELAINE AT EMORT@UMICH.EDU

ELAINE MORTON

wh -tbls? No cox-toon
The cat-on is forgot to Ad 4-heirjob
so one o 4he colurnIsts drew +ho4
eicspeepiduvre eof.. urt...
Free speech vs. free elections

0

spective students.
On Oct. 13, the University released data
about this year's enrollment statistics. Nota-
bly, the percentage of African-American,
Native-American and Hispanic freshmen
dropped by 11.4 percent - or 69 students
- from last year. The report confirmed an
increase in the number of admissions offers
extended to underrepresented minori-
ties, but more opportunities to enroll were
declined.
These facts expose the negative effects
the state constitutional ban on affirmative
action has had on campus diversity over the
past few years. Losing 11.4 percent of minor-
ity students is a substantial blow to campus
diversity. With fewer and fewer minority
students each year, the University increas-
ingly becomes a place that lacks racial diver-
sity, producing fewer students who have
been exposed to different backgrounds and
experiences. And the more minority stu-
dents the University loses, the less this cam-
pus can appeal to future students. The result
is a campus without the benefits that abroad
swatch of unique and differing students
bring to the intellectual and social experi-
ences of college.
That's not to say this wasn't expected.
The University somewhat anticipated these
consequences by establishing The Center
for Educational Outreach and Academic
Success. The goal of the center's outreach
programs is to make favorable connections
between younger primary and second-
ary students and the University to increase
minority enrollment. But this year's num-

bers show that outreach efforts are, at least
in part, failing. The University must do more
to convince minority students to enroll here.
Its efforts should include a more pronounced
role in visiting minority communities and
courting students the campus needs.
Of course, there is an importantunderlying
problem: money. Lester Monts, University
senior vice provost for academic affairs, told
AnnArborcom on Oct.13'that in interviews,
minority students who declined admission
referenced alack of financial assistance. The
University did its part in accepting more stu-
dents from minority populations, but it didn't
succeed in convincing them that this place
can be affordable. That is a major concern.
Though the University must tiptoe
around restrictions on economic incentives
for minorities as a result of the affirmative
action ban, it should offer more scholar-
ships to all disadvantaged students - many
of which will include minorities. A well-
publicized allocation of University funds to
expand socioeconomic-based financial aid
programs could help counteract the damage
to campus diversity done by the ban and the
tough economy.
Administrators have to start thinking
about more aggressive measures to negate
these effects from the state's affirmative
action ban. The University is rapidly losing a
vital segment of its campus population, and
unless it offers more financial aid and does a
better job of reaching out to communities, it
may lose even more minority students next
year. Such losses have already gone too far.

ver the past five years, during
my time as a Daily columnist,
epithets like "elitist" and "com-
munist" have been
common responses
directed toward me
in the days follow-
ing my columns. My
last column (Noth-
ing is free, not even
speech, 10/05/2009),
as expected,
brought a very dif-
ferent type of bit- IMRAN
ter, personal and SYED
vindictive response.
People just can't
stand anyone mess-
ing with (their understanding of) the
First Amendment.
The vast majority ofthose who were
outraged by my claim - that the First
Amendment isn't an absolute right, but
rather an abstract proxy related to a
larger ideal of free thought - felt that
I was taking an elitist approach. Free
speech must be literal, limitless and
absolute,theyargued,becausewithout
that the little people get crushed. The
government and those with the power
would use arguments of abstractness
to deny true freedom of speech, they
said.
I understand why that argument
seems persuasive, but I maintain that
it's simply not true. No one has bene-
fited as much from the limitless defini-
tion of free speech as big corporations
and those with power. As long as free
speech remains an unqualified abso-
lute, the scenario is one where those
who yellthe loudestwin and the voices
of the little people get drowned out.
A timely example of what I mean
sits before the United States Supreme
Court now - Citizens United v. Fed-
eral Election Commission. The case
- which documents an anti-Hillary
Clinton documentary that the FEC
argued was subject to campaign
finance regulations because it was
essentially a political ad - was origi-

nally heard by the Court last term.
The Supreme Court ordered the case
be reargued this term with special
focus on the constitutional question
of how much regulation government
can maintain over political speech of
corporations.
The Supreme Court has precedents
dictating that corporate money can
and should be regulated, but it may
be ready to reverse those precedents
and open the floodgates of corporate
money and influence in elections.
Why? Nothing other than free speech
gone wild.
Let's go back to an accident that
occurred in 1886. The Supreme Court
heard the case of Santa Clara County
v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company.
That case was about taxation of rail-
road property, but no one remembers
that today. Before oral arguments,
Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite made
an offhand side remark that came to
change everything:
"The court does not wish to hear
argument onthe question whether the
provision in the Fourteenth Amend-
mentto the Constitution, which forbids
a State to deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws, applies to these corporations. We
are all of opinion that it does."
That seems simple enough - the
Court was saying that corporations
have the same protection under the
Constitution that people do. But
that was not the holding of the case.
Nowhere in its written opinion (which
is the only binding precedent that
emerges from the Court) was anything
mentioned about corporate person-
hood. The Court was not deciding the
issue but rather was setting it aside.
But as the case was reported by the
court reporter, himself a former presi-
dent of a railroad company, that off-
hand remark by Waite came to define
an entire branch of new protections
under the law. The awkward proposi-
tion of corporate personhood has mul-
tiple important consequences, but its

impact on free speech is perhaps most
significant.
Because of that doctrine, the
Supreme Court must regard corpora-
tions as people, and it stands ready
today to declare government regula-
tion of corporate spending in elections
to be an improper violation of free
speech. How far the court will go in
its declaration remains to be seen, and
one hopes that the most catastrophic
outcome may yet be avoided. Regard-
less, there is no denying that we stand
at this precipice today solely because
we remain obsessed with the literal
letter of the First Amendment at the
expense of its true spirit.
First Amendment
isn't just a tool for
the powerful.
If we were to take heed of the larger
ideal of a free marketplace of ideas
- where everyone's voice, no matter
how small, has the opportunity to be
heard - we would cast aside ridicu-
lous, absolutist derivations of the
First Amendment that treat money as
speech and regard any regulation of it
as an infringement. Because we have
embraced this extreme view, those
with the most money and power yell
the loudest and drown out those lit-
tle people my critics were so worried
about.
The Court seems prepared today to
remove even the few tiny restrictions
that gave the little people a smallvoice.
Is that really a more comforting notion
than simply accepting that the First
Amendment, like most parts of the
Constitution, is an abstract construct?
- Imran Syed can be reached
at galad@umich.edu.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS:
Nina Amilineni, Emad Ansari, Emily Barton, Ben Caleca, Michelle DeWitt,
Brian Flaherty, Emma Jeszke, Raghu Kainkaryam, Sutha K Kanagasingam, Erika Mayer,
Edward McPhee, Harsha Panduranga, Alex Schiff, Asa Smith, Brittany Smith,
Radhika Upadhyaya, Rachel Van Gilder, Laura Veith
BRADON SMITH I
Grading the Assembly

During last spring's MSA elections, the
Michigan Vision Party campaigned and won
an election with the promise to return control
of student government to its rightful owners,
the students. As part of this campaign, MVP
also promised to maintain trust between stu-
dents.
Last semester marked a slow start as the
new executive board took time to settle in, and
summer vacation arrived soon after the transi-
tion. The plans they had only begun to set into
motion earned the Assembly and the leader-
ship a grade of C+ from me. Excuses like time
needed for transition and the onset of vacation
are no longer rational - if MSA is to receive a
passing grade for its work this term, it needs to
produce real results.
This is not to say that progress toward our
vision has not been attempted or partially real-
ized. Readers of the Daily may have noted the
attempts to reform the period of time known as
"Community Concerns" so that only germane,
student business is discussed. Unfortunately,
despite the clear mandate we received for our
vision in the last election, MVP still does not
have a firm hold on the Assembly to pass each
of our reforms. This has certainly not kept us
from trying to bring more transparency to the
Assembly and returning it to students, and I am
pleased to note this progress.
Specifically, the forthcoming Constitu-
tional Convention has great potential to make
MSA more relevant to students and constitu-
ent groups. It provides the chance for students
from across campus to fix or dismiss things
that aren't working, as well as create something

that has an opportunity to actually matter to
students. Changing the Constitution could be
a huge step toward making MSA a true stu-
dent government rather than the bureaucratic,
unwieldy institution that it currently is. This
step toward a convention that will help to rep-
resent all corners of campus is unprecedented.
Plenty of small changes have been made. But
our vision is for fundamental overhaul. The
Convention improves the Assembly's grade
from a C+ to a B.
But should you care?
We've already spoken a bit about the poten-
tial of the Convention, but there is so much
more that can also be done as we work toward
making the Assembly more accountable, trans-
parent, and relevant to students. These ideas
cannot be accomplished without the other two
principles guiding it, and a constant influx of
new participants is necessary to keep our vision
alive. MSA Mondays, an improved block M
and a Campus Leaders Luncheon are only the
beginning of our campus improvement effort,
but we need your help to continually improve.
Our biggest obstacle is not the Constitution or
the Assembly itself - it is the apathy that has
plagued the Assembly for so long.
I'd like to issue an invitation and a chal-
lenge to join the Michigan Vision Party. Our
mass meeting, internal elections, and informa-
tion for candidates will be today at 8:00 p.m.
in 3460 Mason Hall. This is your assembly and
your school: What's your vision?
This viewpoint was written by Bradon Smith
on behalf of the Michigan Vision Party.

The Daily is looking for a diverse group of strong, informed, passionate writers to
join the Editorial Board. Editorial Board members are responsible for discussing and
writing the editorials that appear on the left side of the opinion page.
E-MAIL ROBERT SOAVE AT RSOAVE@UMICH.EDU FOR MORE INFORMATION.
JONATHAN SLEMROD AND SAM VAN KLEEF
Celebrate liberty, not government

0
6

It is not very often that you hear people say, "Thank
God that the federal government regulates the size of the
holes in my Swiss cheese," or, "I sleep well at night know-
ing that the United States Department of Agriculture's
'Food Safety and Inspection Service' has issued hundreds
of arcane guidelines and standards for my frozen pizza."
Largely hidden from daily life and absent from receipts
and tax forms, regulations are hidden taxes that everyone
pays - even if we don't realize it.
Government regulations are omnipresent. They hike
the cost of our Federal Communications Commission-
regulated alarm clocks, make the drive to class more
expensive through burdensome fuel and safety standards
and increase the cost of a six pack through vast bottling,
labeling and labor mandates.
Surely, the concept of regulation is desirable to most
people in our society. We don't want factories dumping
hazardous materials in the Huron River nor do we think
that car companies should be allowed to make cars that
combust while we are speeding along on the highway.
But is government the best and most efficient means to
achieve these goals? And if it is, is government regulation
morally permissible?
Unfortunately, the growth of government means a shift
from a market economy to a political economy where reg-
ulation is written to benefit political interests, not society
as a whole. This transfer means distorted economic sig-
nals, poorly allocated resources and taxpayer money that
is squandered. We are left with a labyrinth of confusing
- and often pointless - regulations that hurt consumers,

punish business owners and, worst of all, bring smiles to
the faces of lobbyists. One look at the titanic Code of Fed-
eral Regulations lays to rest President Bill Clinton's ludi-
crous claim in1996 that the "eraof big government is over."
On the contrary - big government just keeps growing.
The alternative to the current system is to allow indi-
viduals to make their own decisions about which prod-
ucts they buy, what they put in their own bodies and who
they choose to do business with. Liberty and free markets
in the absence of government coercion are not onlymoral,
but they lead to a healthier, safer, smarter and more pros-
perous society for everyone. This is a reality thatCongress
should keep in mind as it addresses important issues like
health care and energy.
Students need to recognize the expansion of govern-
ment and fight against it. Today, numerous student groups
will celebrate "Liberty on the Diag" from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m.
to educate students about the benefits of freedom. Partici-
pating groups include College Libertarians, Young Amer-
icans for Freedom, Students for a Sensible Drug Policy,
Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, Students for a
Free Economy and Students of Objectivism. While these
groups don't agree on every issue, they all feel strongly
that more government means less freedom - a specter
that should be avoided like the plague.
Jonathan Slemrod is the president of the
University's chapter of the College Libertarians.
Sam van Kleef is the president of the University
of Michigan's Young Americans for Freedom.

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 University affiliation. Letters are edited
for style, length, clarity and accuracy. All submissions become property of the Daily.
We do not print anonymous letters.
Send letters to tothedaily@umich.edu.

Back to Top

© 2024 Regents of the University of Michigan